Gil Hamilton wrote:
> >the fine point is that M$ in return gets rights the mafia has not. so in
> >practice, you're possibly better of the M$ way (the sheer number of
> >corporations proves this). it's just that should the government fall,
> >M$'s "rights" (created by the government) will fall as well. the mafia's
> >"rights" (created by its own guns) do not.
>
> I suppose it wouldn't be productive to point out the "rights" that the
> government has recently given Microsoft (rights to be hounded, threatened,
> sued and disassembled by the usual government bureaucrat- thieves).
I guess that's just the government demonstrating the point I'm making,
namely that it can take away at any time what it has given.
it could also be the big bully showing the wannabe bully who's got more
muscle.
or it could be justice finally descending. I guess it's a matter of
interpretation and doesn't really belong here. maybe I shouldn't have
chosen M$ as the example corp.
> >I maintain that the owners have given up their personal rights in
> >exchange for government-created corporate rights. as long as the
> >government is stable, that is usually a good deal.
>
> A good deal? You sound like one of those politicians that's always telling
> me that what they want to do to^H^Hfor me is in my own best interests, and I
> really should be glad to help out. (And if I'm not, well, it must be
> because I'm "selfish", "mean-spirited", "intolerant", "reactionary" or
> "elitist".)
umpf, actually not. "good deal" here is definitely in the sense that
it's a the best one you'll get. try running a business NOT along the
lines the government has defined for you and you'll see what I mean.
> Fortunately, in the US at least, it is still a widely held belief (or at
> least, whether they believe it or not, politicians still feel compelled to
> give lip service to the belief) that government does not create rights.
> Rather rights are held to belong to individuals and government is not
> empowered to destroy or deny those rights. Likewise, rights are not "created
> by [] guns", only protected by them.
we are now again speaking about the "natural" and "inalienable" rights
of people, right?
oh, and where exactly is the line between protecting - enforcing -
creating ?
