"perfectly innocent businessmen" - NOT

{From Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.1110 MST)]

[From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.0807 MDT)]

Mike Acree (2000.04.12.1213 PDT)--

>You, if I understand, want also to minimize such arbitrary
>control of others, but with a big exception made for businessmen.

You don't seem to believe that businessmen try to exert any control over
other people, such as their employees, or people whose air and water they
pollute, or whose money they take for bad products, or politicians, and so
on. Your position seems to be that it's all the fault of politicians, who
put temptation in the way of perfectly innocent businessmen by offering to
take bribes from them.

'Tis so, 'taint so. Enough.

Best,

Bill P.

Sorry Bill, but I don't see that in Mike's responses, or given that his and
my respective reference levels feel closer together, maybe that's why I
_can't_ see it, or _won't_ see it. Maybe someone can help me jump up
a level? <g>

All I've tried to make as a point is that saints and sinners are on both
sides, business person and bureaucrat. There are powerfully dynamic
processes involved (PCT) that IMO generate improved outcomes if we
allow them to work as freely as possible in the HERE and NOW. IOW,
my plan would be to negotiate for greater individual range of motion,
whereas I take your position to prefer various gov interventions.

And what I hear Mike trying to get across is a important distinction, I
believe, that there is a significant difference between political power and
economic power. Of the two guess which I think is more civil? Not
perfect, not innocent, just more gentle for more people most of the time
and more in keeping with chap 17 than political power IMO.

"'Tis so, 'taint so. Enough." <g>

Best,
nth