"To expect the government to prevent such fraud from ever occurring would be like wanting it to provide cushions for all the children who might fall. To assume it to be possible to prevent successfully, by regulation, all possible malpractices of this kind is to sacrifice to a chimerical perfection the whole progress of industry."
Turgot's commentary is perhaps even more poignant in light of the doctrine of strict liability, n'est ce pas?
Ken Hall | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 3:52 pm | #
---------------------------------
I am only slightly aware of the works of Turgot. Looks like he is certainly someone that is deserving of more study.
Liberty Dog | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 4:08 pm | #
------------------------------------
Agreement! Well done.
Todd | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 9:02 pm | #
-----------------------------
It is possible, Turgot conceded, that, on the free market, there will sometimes be "a cheating merchant and a duped consumer." But then, the market will supply its own remedies: "the cheated consumer will learn by experience and will cease to frequent the cheating merchant, who will fall into discredit and thus will be punished for his fraudulence."
Yeah, right.
Tell that to all the people taken in and robbed by the Corporations and individuals who have gone unpunished. What was Enron if not fraud on a massive scale?
Tell that to all the people who were killed in Ford Explorers before the tyre problem was sorted and Chev Corvairs before they were discontinued. (If selling junk merchandise is not fraud then what is it?)
Tell that to the people who buy junk bonds on Wall St on a daily basis. OK, so they are stupid - should know better... Tell that to the millions who were fleeced by fraudulent share issues in the 1920s.
Tell that to the people taken in by the NZer who fleeced them of $5 million (at latest count and still going) with fraudulent hedge funds...
So, decriminalise fraud - caveat emptor applies.
Would I buy American? Not on your life would I. Would I buy Japanese? Not on your grandmother's grave would I.
Which Bank would you trust? Citibank? How much would be lost by how many before the "honest" banks were sorted?
No. Turgot (sure it was not Turbot? He makes as much sense as a poisson) is wrong.
probligo | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:16 pm | #
------------------------------------
Nobody is talking about decriminalizing fraud. Nor about abolishing courts. You are arguing against anarchy, which I occasionally claim to support when I'm being silly, but English common law had solved all these problems 200 years before Turgot.
History didn't begin with Hegel, and our understanding of it wasn't much improved by his successors.
Old Whig | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:35 pm | #
------------------------------------
"The Wealth of Nations" owes a lot to a book Turgot wrote, and Adam Smith knew him and counted him as an influence. Actually I had never heard of him either, but I saw a highly praised book advertised at THE Online Book List (see sidebar); fortunately for me, the public library had a copy.
The book's not perfect, but has a great list. I will try to post a book review soon, with the list.
invadesoda | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 12:32 pm | #
-----------------------------------
Oh, you mean MY sidebar. I was looking around over there to see what he had on Turgot on the site.
That Site is actually an advertisement for The Triumph of Liberty, but he has a lot of material right there, and links to more.
Old Whig | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 5:54 pm | #
----------------------------------
"But then, the market will supply its own remedies: "the cheated consumer will learn by experience ..."
Well, you sure fooled me with your quotation.
I assumed that your quotation in fact was promoting the principle of market remedying wrongs rather than the enforcement of law.
"To expect the government to prevent such fraud from ever occurring would be like wanting it to provide cushions for all the children who might fall. To assume it to be possible to prevent successfully, by regulation, all possible malpractices of this kind is to sacrifice to a chimerical perfection the whole progress of industry."
Ok, so if you are not talking about prevention of fraud, about the application of justice to the crime of fraud, what does this para mean?
Oh, I get it.
The whole item is in American - where words mean different things to different people. Caught out again Bob.
probligo | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 9:39 pm | #
---------------------------------
Actually, it's translated from French, where they're known to speak in flowery language.
We old whigs are fond of law being discovered in the course of living, not imposed by geniuses from above who are in reality no smarter than the rest of us. We like juries of peers and humble judges and we are suspicious of administrators, regulators and bureaucrats. Also policemen and prosecutors. And any other investigators who might bring the power of the government on the heads in innocent people.
I realize that there are people who believe that a government title embues a person with greater wisdom than the rest of us.
Those are the people I politely call "Liberals."
Just because I believe in politeness, you see.
Old Whig | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 11:44 pm | #
Anybody know where to get Turgot's book?
Or, while I'm talking about my wish list, Benjamin Franklin's book on how to succeed in business?
Update: I neglected to mention that force and fraud are both impossible to prevent without prior knowledge and the prior application of force.
Know anybody who's omniscient, Probligo?
No comments:
Post a Comment