Post #110,991
7/22/03 8:29:35 PM
|
Good point
If the business accepts a government subsidy then they should follow the same standards as the government. So if the government doesn't allow discrimination then neither should anyone accepting their money. And this does indeed include all (most? I'm pretty sure it's all) of the major airlines.
But you clearly have a problem with my main point, that private businesses should be allowed to exercize property rights. You seem to make the distinction that personal freedoms are somehow distinct from property rights. Please explain how?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #110,995
7/22/03 8:37:16 PM
|
Private water company
No government.
No subsidies.
Decides to stop selling water to blacks.
Their homes become worthless.
This is an extreme of the economic manipulation possible based on your viewpoint.
|
Post #110,999
7/22/03 8:59:28 PM
|
Two answers
First is that enough people would have a problem with this that it couldn't last. Even apartheid came down eventually. I refuse to believe enough of the population would condone such behavior for it to go on indefinitely.
Second is that I allow for the possibility that some services should be publicly held. Is that privately held water company a hypothetical or does such a thing exist? How do/would they guarantee rights of way across property they don't own? How could anything we currently view as a utility (power, water, phone) exist without government enforcement of their rights of way?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #111,006
7/22/03 9:27:04 PM
|
Why?
Enough people?
Nah.
I'd say there are huge swaths of the population who would love it.
Don't forget the American dream.
A million blacks swimming back to Africa with a Jew under each arm.
Right of way?
Purchased, done deal, no issue.
Fully paid off all the required pieces of the governent.
Isolated development, of which they are the only source
of water.
No wells.
Hell, they can even own the damn road in my example.
Such things have happened in "company towns".
The only thing they don't own are 1/2 the houses in the development,
owned by the blacks, who they decide not to sell water to any more.
Yes or No: Do you support their "right" to do that?
|
Post #111,021
7/22/03 11:00:59 PM
|
Hey you can swim last time I checked
if the armpit smell bothers you :-)
You are liable to be sued civilly if denied equal protection, a governmental entity cannot criminalise failure to desegragate. Governments MUST treat all equal or face federal criminal penalties.
thanx,
bill
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #111,089
7/23/03 8:24:08 AM
|
How can "company towns" exist?
The only reasons companies are able to grow so large is the protection afforded by incormporation, a legal fiction enforced by law. We, through our elected representatives, have decided to allow this fiction. Then we try, through these same representatives, to pile layer upon layer of regulation upon these companies to restrict how they may act.
Wouldn't it be simpler to rethink the whole concept of incorporation? Had Union Carbide officers been held personally liable for the Bhopal disaster, it is likely the next set of executives would have exercized more care. Instead we pass on to coporate officers all the benefits and rights, without any of the liabilities.
So in one sense I agree with you. If we were to eliminate restrictions on what corporations can do without introducing personal accountability, it could be as bad as you suggest. But IMO we are using one bad idea to try to solve the problems created by another one.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #111,018
7/22/03 10:43:49 PM
|
Veolia (nee Vivendi) and Suez are 2 of the biggest.
This week's Economist has a survey on water - [link|http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1906846|Priceless]. They argue that governments often do a very poor job in water.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #111,037
7/22/03 11:48:45 PM
|
Re: Veolia (nee Vivendi) and Suez are 2 of the biggest.
Yessss.. I recall a few months back, a most intelligent exploration of that very issue - I think.. by a woman assoc. with the Grameen Bank. Delhi scholastic accent. Overall though, this particularly al punte NPR broadcast was about a conference, during which several fine speakers gave concise rebuttals to the current Corporatization Plan for {those helpless folks in} the Third World. A few rose to subtle-Tom-Lehrer heights. Missed any web ref, even while listening for such :(
IIRC one biggie was the stark recitation of ENRON's India power-$$ grab via 'funding' [but not really] that power plant, while also indenturing most in the region for.. a couple generations of grossly overpriced 'power'. Ah the biz-power to disempower folks through massive dissembling. But then, near-at-home: we have Longhorn, so -
The rest of the world doesn't have to become much.. smarter to - tangle assholes effectively with the Neoconman mindset: only, they need then to become REPORTED.
Which brings us back to OUR problem in the Homeland, now pretty Secure against many such factual incursions.
Ashton
|
