From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:30:03 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199608030142.UAA11326@einstein>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960802185527.26652A-100000@crl5.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Jim Choate asked:

> A reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways
> of fulfilling its responsiblities. They can either submit to
> regulation and quality control from the local municipality or
> else they can hang signs about their place of business declaring
> "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own risk".
> Which do you think is the more reasonable?

It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice.  I would
choose the second, myself.  Only my sign would say, "Our food is
guaranteed not tainted by the Acme insurance company, not some
corrupt government."  The problem is, governments do not allow 
businesses nor consumers to make that sort of choice.  With them 
it's, "my way or the highway" (or harassment and jail actually).

> People and businesses are not the same.

Until Jim shows me a business that isn't owned and operated by
people, I'll have to respectfully disagree.  Businesses are just
people acting alone or in concert.  Actions are what count, not
whether the action is of a pecuniary nature or not.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~