At 9:32 PM -0700 8/10/04, David B. Shemano wrote:
Even taking your example into consideration, let's imagine a lack of
"economic coercion." Actually, I can't imagine it. In any event,
let's assume that the law requires every car have the safety of a
Lexus and everybody can afford a Lexus. Fine. But then a new car
comes on the market that is safer than a Lexus, but costs a lot
more. Conceptually, you are right back where you are today, where
the poor can buy a used Pinto.
Right back where you are today, in terms of relative deprivation due
to the existence of classes (as more safety regulations do not
abolish classes as you note correctly), but in the hypothetical
scenario that you mention, at least the minimum standard of safety
for all have gone up, including for the rich who can now have
products of even higher safety standards than products of already
high standards that they had at their disposal before the advent of
stricter safety regulations.
That sounds like a virtuous spiral of progress of technology for all,
whether you take a capitalist or socialist point of view.
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
* Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/>
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>
