more on House Passes Bill to Raise Indecency

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:00:28 -0500
To: Daz <me () dazmcg net>
Cc: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on House Passes Bill to Raise Indecency

Daz--

Your question about "potential competition:"  yes, there are circumstances
in which this can control prices, but only if price is very sticky.
Otherwise, firms will maintain high prices until the competition actually
enters, then lower price to meet competition.  Airlines a case in point.
But if firms price using long-term contracts, then potential competition can
deter monopoly pricing prior to entry.

Now to the real point.  If you take a job as a law enforcement official,
including an oath to uphold the law, then yes I expect you to do what you
pledge to do.  If you don't like some of these laws, then don't take the
job.  It's that simple.  Beyond that, I cannot see how anyone would think
the current standards on broadcast TV indecency are "unethical."  I don't
agree with them, and I'd prefer at little more bustline on my 8 pm and 9 pm
CSI-type shows.  But this is a preference; it doesn't make the law
unethical.  Like it or not, this is the country we live in, and standards
like this are an expression of the popular will.  These laws are not
unethical, although they go further than I personally would like.

While I agree with Dave that some agencies of USG don't enforce laws they
are charged to enforce, I view this as USG hypocrisy of the worst kind.  If
we don't like a law, then change it.  This should be Rule One of any
democracy.  Hypocrisy should not be part of our political agenda.

Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daz" <me () dazmcg net>
To: <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:44 AM
Subject: re: [IP] more on House Passes Bill to Raise Indecency


> Dear Professor Faulhaber,
>
> IMHO it is unethical to do something simply because you have been told
> to - an action has to be ethically justifiable on its own regardless of
> its legality (laws reflect ethics not the other way around) - however that
> doesn't seem to be the prevailing view (which is perhaps why we keep
> getting into so much trouble in business; companies setting their ethical
> standards as "local law" and using "what we can do without being
> prosecuted" as their accountancy standard).
>
> Now with that said, I would like to ask you a question:
> Do you believe that "potential competition" is enough to control prices in
> a market?
>
> I ask this since the arguments against it are pretty similar to arguments
> against what you say about blindly following the law being ok because
> there is potential to change it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Darren McGuinness


------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/