Monday
(1)The Office of Fair Trading (the name being a splendid example of British irony in action) has ordered 60 private schools in the UK to hand over documents for an inquiry into alleged fee-fixing in violation of the 1998 Competition Act.
The OFT's move provoked protests from the Independent Schools Council, which said it had "serious concerns about the protracted nature of this investigation and the effect it may have on schools".However, the ISC appeared to acknowledge that some schools may have fallen foul of a change in the law, but blamed the Government for failing to keep them informed.
Yet again we see that the scope and burden of state regulation is such that it is almost impossible for businesses to avoid breaking some laws unless they employ a ruinously huge staff of lawyers and 'compliance officers'. Of course the very notion that the state, which imposes vast distorting pressures throughout the economy, can be an arbiter of 'Fair Trading' is almost beyond parody. As the Angry Economist said the other day:
Now, I would be the last person to claim that markets always produce good results. Some problems are hard for markets to solve simply because they are hard problems. Pointing to a problem which is hard for markets to solve doesn't automatically mean that solution-by-government will be better. It may turn out to be that government interference will produce a better result (pareto optimal) than peaceful cooperation. I allow that as a possibility at the same time that I doubt it will ever happen, once all costs are accounted for.
The trouble is, as economies are complex networked systems, that it is not always obvious how this law over here buggers up that market over there. The distortions are often not a single causal step away and thus might as well be completely unrelated unless you are willing to take the time to really look at why things happen the way they do... and in most political systems, it is usually easier to just pass another law.
Of course the very notion that the state, which imposes vast distorting pressures throughout the economy, can be an arbiter of 'Fair Trading' is almost beyond parody
Just as they (in the US) presume to make comments about private business' accounting practices when theirs is atrocious. Not that the government shouldn't right the wrongs of fraud, but they presume to make a black and white out of a gray that they are steeped in themselves. I can't think of any malady in the private sector that isn't compounded in the lofty citadels of State. It grinds my gears to no end when I am arguing with a Statist who complains of Condition A and turns to the Federal Gov't for a solution and ignores the fact that the condition exists there too, by a factor of 10. But their faith is blind as it must be for all religions.
Posted by toolkien at March 1, 2004 10:12 PM
Sorry Toolkien, but it is NOT the Government who should be righting the wrongs of fraud, but the Courts. Courts that if the Government was properly hobbled would be setup in a proper Natural/Common Law manner, and would be able to deal with all forms of Tort.
It is small wonder we suffer the legal loonacy we do when we allow Governments to Legislate, and Courts to Govern.
I admit there is also room for "better business associations" to really help fight fraud, but again those need not be Government driven, and I dare say they are better if they aren't.
Posted by Pham Nuwen at March 1, 2004 11:10 PM
Sorry Toolkien, but it is NOT the Government who should be righting the wrongs of fraud, but the Courts. Courts that if the Government was properly hobbled would be setup in a proper Natural/Common Law manner, and would be able to deal with all forms of Tort.
So I'm to discern that there is to be a Court split from government? Has there been an effective Court without the use of force behind it? Who dictates what is Natural Law and who carries out the rulings of the Court if the losing party decides not to co-operate?
Perhaps I need to elaborate on my definition of government. The foundation of a proper government should be the contracting away of Force by individuals in its proactive and retributive forms, and the government's part of the contract to protect life and property using proactive and retributive Force. It's about its only real function, and that would include restoring property stolen through fraudulent means. One would hope that it is done through a process of adjudication where the parties can plead and be heard, but ultimately it will take executive force to follow through.
Perhaps what I call government and what you call Natural/Common Law Courts are functionally the same thing? A government founded on a real notion of of a 'social contract' which would eminate from the value judgements of the individuals to protect life an property and is conscious of the individual? It seems that this would be another way of looking at Law in terms of 'commonality' (or natural though I shy away from using 'natural' anything) as it eminates from the individual upward, not the System downward. Either way, and semantics aside, we visualize a separate association of people designated to right tortious wrongs between others no matter what we call it. I presume they both will have the privilege to use Force to make their rulings effective.
Posted by toolkien at March 2, 2004 03:17 PM
