Somewhere in that obscure, convoluted post is a simple answer trying to escape.

Bot

What happened to the original defenders of the free market? Neither Kamil or David have come out in favor if its expansion???
I'll try again. Let's get a free market in education. Charge tution for all levels of education. The rich and middle class buy education for their kids, the children of the poor do without? What's wrong with that?

I'll venture that the market solves a few problems but humans think in ways that transcend market choices. Social decisions always involve moral values which cannot be chosen or enacted through market processes. Slavery is wrong because it commodifies human beings. Wage slavery is a notch above chattel slavery but it suffers from the same problem, commodification of human labor.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Ken Lay played golf with Bill Clinton and there are a ton of Admin pic's with that silly dude from North Korea.

Sorry Kerry, I've been busy since I have midterms this week. Anyways, of course markets do not always act in a way that is as moral as possible, and I would never argue that markets do. Of course the government has to intervene sometimes but I would argue that the government does way too much.

wage slavery? Please explain. I think you need to be more specific about what markets should be completely free.

Thanks
David

__________________
_____________________________________________

2000 Honda Accord V6 137k miles

1972 300SEL 4.5 98k miles

_____________________________________________

The marketplace of ideas.

Finally something on which we agree.

B

I am ripping my hair out over MIDTERMS right now. Wish I can be here to shoot a few rants but I'm unable to do so at the moment. 5 Midterm exams this week and next.

Think, bucko man. Let go of the bit of flotsam and jetsom you cling to and expandulate.

The belief that any public stricture on human activity is merely the result of a prudish nanny state mentality is naive. There are examples of behaviors that are better off prohibited. The question is then, where to draw the line?

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

The question, "Who owns one's body?" reminds me of the question put to Sean Connery's character in "The Name of the Rose." By the way, I think the movie is one of those rare cases where the movie is better than the book, but the book was pretty good, auth Umberto Ecco. Anyway, the question was, "Did Jesus own his clothes?"

Why was that an important question? The Brothers of St Francis (watering-down the Albeginsian heresy) believed that all men were called to live as Jesus Christ and so, took their vows of poverty literally. They thought that not only should individuals be poor but that the Church itself should, as the Body of Christ (I think that's from St Paul) should also eschew wealth. As one could imagine there were powerful forces within the Church who denounced that argument.

And so it is with the argument about whether the individual owns his body. If it is true, then every life event from abortion to entertainment and employment choices to organ disposition to euthanasia is not the concern of the State. If it is not true that the individual owns his body then the individual does not have the final say in these life events.

Bot

At what point does a group of concerned neighbors coming together in an attempt to civilize their neighborhood morph into the state? Aren't we supposed to be the state?

I've heard all the arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution, for example. Makes good sense in many ways. Then there's the phenomena of an inner city that lets prostitution operate largely unhindered. Soon, you've got tricks taking place on people's porchs; hookers, pimps and Johns loudly interacting outside of houses during the wee hours; and kids watching curbside trick negotiations on their way to school.

Oakland seems to go back and forth tween a robust hooker trade and police crackdowns on same. When I drove cab there, I quickly learned where the streetwalkers ply their trade. The route I take to the nearest Home Depot takes me by a part of that strip: San Pablo Avenue. I've seen it when the hookers were jumpin' and it's not a pretty sight for anyone looking to raise a family in the vicinity.

SO: when people want to rein in that kind of action so it doesn't become an accepted norm, is that the "state" moving like a juggernaut or is it healthy citizen involvement in self-governance? Is it the nanny-state in action or the entry of a tough new mayor or sherrif?

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

It appears that the reason for the state to ban prostitution is that it has a negative effect on the community, correct?

However, this can also be said of other vices such as drinking. It's not permitted to drink publicly..........this is restricted to drinking establishments. It's not permitted to walk around in public after consuming too much alcohol..........it's unpleasant for the community at large.

You're not permitted to remove your clothes in public. The community standards don't allow that, even though it's your body.

The decision on whether to limit certain behaviors should generally be determined by the affect on the community.

However, prostitution in and of itself, if done behind closed doors, by consenting adults, poses no greater threat to society than drinking alcohol behind closed doors. The problem occurs when the behavior spills out into the public arena.

Good point. Well regulated brothels would probably be good for the overall health of a community and could undercut the streetwalkers market.

I think St. Augestine said something like: "Prostitution is a bit like a sewer. Neither are very pleasant to behold but without them, the palace begins to stink."

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

"The Name of the Rose" was an excellent film, wasn't it? Sean Connery's ballsiest role almost. I saw another movie that transmitted palpable evil about as well: Herzog's "Nosferatu" with Klaus Kinski playing the vampire. Jeez, I woke up in a cold sweat the night after seeing that.

Anyway, speaking of movies, you never did watch the two parter, Jean de Florette and Manon of the Spring did you? Tsk-tsk. These films should be shown to high school boys, young adults, and old timers.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K