On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Greg Broiles wrote:
I think this goes a little too far (though I'm also pretty skeptical about the underlying proposal). True, it's very unlikely that cops will arrest themselves for violating a mandatory disclosure law - expecting any group to reliably self-police is unrealistic.
Speak for your self. The question isn't self-policing. The question is that one person is making decisions for another. Clearly less than optimal if you have any belief in 'free market' (which is a perfect example of self-policing behaviour; where does the stability come from?). Who'd know? Who'd care? No, the observation is that people are strange. Not some people, not those people, not weird people. People are strange. Any(!!!) time that one party is put in a position of authority over a second party, a third party must be included. That third party must be uninvolved with both parties and the market. That party must operate by socially accepted (eg voting) rules that apply to ALL members of the community equally. That third party MUST(!!!) report to the public at large. The public at large have a right to know how they can expect to be treated, and change it if it doesn't work to their satisfaction (which after all is the 'community' the law is supposed to be respecting in a democracy). Any society that violates this basic theme will be abusive. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------