|
JH: "If they [statements by government ministers] do not have legislative backing, then it is not an action of government. It is just the free speech of an individual (who happens to work in the government)." So, when John Howard makes a speech in Parliament, or a press statement in front of the flag, about how we should treat Indonesians or about the morality of euthanasia etc, that is not an action of government - its someone who just happens to work in government expressing their private views! The fact is that John Howard's statements carry special weight as a result of his status as the head of a democratically elected government. Further, economists have long recognised "moral sausion" as one weapon in a government's arsenel. Thus, your view that such actions are not acts of government thus seems to me to be just another of those Libertarian language twists. CD: Yet, even then, much compliance with government legislation is voluntary and does not require even the threat of violence. JH: "In which case, the legislation is irrelevant because the behaviour would have happened even without the government." Not so. For example, certain regulatory studies have shown that many businesses want to "do the right thing" in terms of consumer safety, and comply with consumer safety laws even where enforcement is effectively non-existent. In part, it is the moral weight that people attach to obeying the law that causes them to comply. There is no reason to believe that businesses would choose the same price-safety trafe-off in the absence of such laws.
| 
