These people are our future

[CoccoBill]

Lyric posted in bold that "A free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct choices."

So do you disagree that people should be allowed to eat french fries from McDonald's Coccobill? Lyric didn't post anything incorrect, if you want to eat french fries in Lyric's society, you can eat them, even if its bad for you. It doesn't have to be a "logically correct choice," its just a choice.

I'm getting the feeling that I'm being leveled, if so nh.

If french fries are bad for people, the rational choice is to not eat them, both from the individual's and the society's perspective. The society doesn't benefit from obese/sick individuals who are less able to provide value for it, and the person himself surely doesn't either. The only one benefiting is the french fry producer, at the expense of the society. Free market capitalism is based on the idea that people act rationally (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._choice_theory), if they don't, the whole foundation of capitalism breaks. The only way to interpret Lyric's statement is to assume that weeding out the weak is a desirable effect of capitalism (= social darwinism), or that his statement is false.

The role of the government is not to make eating french fries illegal, but to 1) ensure french fries are produced following health standards and 2) customers are made aware of the health consequences of eating them, in order to be able to make an informed decision about whether to eat them or not.

I'm not really sure what your saying here. Lyric's argument here is a strawman because you said that in your opinion the role of the government is not to protect citizens from themselves?

On top of being plain incorrect, yes.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...wiki/Straw_man

[WillburForce]

changing from the school example. to public transport.

We had lots of public transport privatised in the UK as everyone thought that private companies would run it better.

However the transport system in London is now a complete shambles.

The private companies sqeeze every last penny they can out of commuters and because there is no other choice (I can't get into the city without using the train/tube) and they have a captive audience there is not a lot I can do about it.

Yes I think the trains are terribley badly run and despise the company that runs them - how else though can I get to work?

When it was run by the government there was somethng I could do about it - not vote for them.

[boost]

changing from the school example. to public transport.

We had lots of public transport privatised in the UK as everyone thought that private companies would run it better.

However the transport system in London is now a complete shambles.

The private companies sqeeze every last penny they can out of commuters and because there is no other choice (I can't get into the city without using the train/tube) and they have a captive audience there is not a lot I can do about it.

Yes I think the trains are terribley badly run and despise the company that runs them - how else though can I get to work?

When it was run by the government there was somethng I could do about it - not vote for them.

And this is where I feel the "privatize everything" mode of thinking falls apart. Building a rival subway system, or streetcar system is impossible in a city when you don't have the power of land appropriation. Even if it were possibly, it still is not in direct competition as it could not possibly serve all the same areas.

So I guess you could argue that if the subway raises their prices high enough, then buying a car might be around the same monthly cost. But now both of these modes of transportation are out of reach of the lower class. And as I've stated before, a mobile workforce is very important to a strong economy.

[IowaSkinsFan]

And this is where I feel the "privatize everything" mode of thinking falls apart. Building a rival subway system, or streetcar system is impossible in a city when you don't have the power of land appropriation. Even if it were possibly, it still is not in direct competition as it could not possibly serve all the same areas.

So I guess you could argue that if the subway raises their prices high enough, then buying a car might be around the same monthly cost. But now both of these modes of transportation are out of reach of the lower class. And as I've stated before, a mobile workforce is very important to a strong economy.

I am of the impression that something like subways and utilities basically have to be run by public funding because of exactly what your talking about. However, I'm ready to be proved wrong (Lyric mentioned the idea of cities being owned privately). This doesn't mean whatsoever that we wouldn't be better off with much less government control than we already have.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I'm getting the feeling that I'm being leveled, if so nh.

Nope, I guess I played that hand badly!

If french fries are bad for people, the rational choice is to not eat them, both from the individual's and the society's perspective. The society doesn't benefit from obese/sick individuals who are less able to provide value for it, and the person himself surely doesn't either. The only one benefiting is the french fry producer, at the expense of the society. Free market capitalism is based on the idea that people act rationally (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._choice_theory), if they don't, the whole foundation of capitalism breaks. The only way to interpret Lyric's statement is to assume that weeding out the weak is a desirable effect of capitalism (= social darwinism), or that his statement is false.

No one is forcing anyone to eat french fries. The obese person who is obese because of eating french fries decided to buy those french fries in a voluntary exchange, money for french fries. Both parties have believe they have benefited from this transaction. Whether or not an obese person actually made a bad choice is not my place to say.

Were not trying to kill all the weak people. That would be insane. Were for letting people learn on their own the merits of their own decisions, good or bad. The result of allowing everyone to make their own decisions is that some will be bad, some will be terrible. But in order to learn how to achieve good results you can't just be forced to engage in a certain activity or not engage in it or your just a robot. I don't want a society of robots, I think were all better off if each of us understands what right and wrong decisions are, rather than just doing all the "right" (which I'm not sure who is defining this) decisions because of force.

You seem to be saying that because capitalism means some people will be fat, unhealthy, or poor, that the system doesn't work. When in reality this system works great. People just make bad decisions, and natural law will cause the results of those decisions to be bad regardless if we change the results.

The role of the government is not to make eating french fries illegal, but to 1) ensure french fries are produced following health standards and 2) customers are made aware of the health consequences of eating them, in order to be able to make an informed decision about whether to eat them or not.

Actually, none of these have to or should be done by the government. There are some private businesses that provide this information to people in exchange for money, and there would be one to fill the hole if the FDA was gone. The government does the exact same thing but gives those businesses much more power than they should have. But yess, the food industry should be required to disclose what is used in its product, and it is.

[CoccoBill]

No one is forcing anyone to eat french fries. The obese person who is obese because of eating french fries decided to buy those french fries in a voluntary exchange, money for french fries. Both parties have believe they have benefited from this transaction. Whether or not an obese person actually made a bad choice is not my place to say.

You're right, no one is forcing anyone to eat the fries. No one forced people to smoke smoke cigarettes before their health hazards became known, despite the tobacco industry's best efforts to cover this up. No one is stopping you from buying kid's toys that have lead in them, or laptops with exploding batteries. Completely up to you, but can you really blame the ones who did, if they did not know these things at the time of purchase. I personally would prefer that someone makes sure the stuff I buy doesn't have any unwanted side effects, I don't have time to investigate what is safe and what isn't, and I'm not interested in buying this information from someone else. I shouldn't have to be an expert of all areas just to be a consumer, my time is better spent being productive than worrying about basic shit like that. The safety of products and consumables should be the default, not an afterthought or someone's business edge.

There is far too little regulation as is, and the standards are not strict enough. Standards and regulations should create the framework within which businesses must operate, to ensure product safety, fair business practices and other things the system does not intrinsically have nor strive for. The standards and regulations are there to protect the consumer, the citizen, from abuse by corporations, just like the police is protecting them from crime and military from hostile external threats. So far you have failed to convince me there is something innately different about these three, that any of these could be replaced by a private alternative, nor that free market in any way ensures or even endorses these values. You argue that maximization of individual's value benefits everyone, but I fail to see how this happens. What my (arguably intrinsically flawed) intuition tells me, is that human altruism alone does not guarantee that the system is working justly towards a greater good, quite the opposite.

Were not trying to kill all the weak people. That would be insane. Were for letting people learn on their own the merits of their own decisions, good or bad. The result of allowing everyone to make their own decisions is that some will be bad, some will be terrible. But in order to learn how to achieve good results you can't just be forced to engage in a certain activity or not engage in it or your just a robot. I don't want a society of robots, I think were all better off if each of us understands what right and wrong decisions are, rather than just doing all the "right" (which I'm not sure who is defining this) decisions because of force.

If we're not actively aiming to ensure the weak are not put in conditions that will kill them, that is, supporting those unable to support themselves, that is the definition of social darwinism. I don't know how to reiterate this more clearly, but I'm in no way advocating forcing anyone to do or not do anything, I am absolutely and vehemently for individual freedoms. I don't see how providing someone the knowledge necessary to make his own fact-based decision and making it harder for him to get screwed over can be described as forcing someone to be a robot, unless you're still just punching the same old haydude. If someone chooses to be e.g. self-destructive knowing all the available information, that's his choice and right.

You seem to be saying that because capitalism means some people will be fat, unhealthy, or poor, that the system doesn't work. When in reality this system works great. People just make bad decisions, and natural law will cause the results of those decisions to be bad regardless if we change the results.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that because the system in no way guarantees features and qualities beneficial for the well-being of the society, the system is broken. I find the maximization of profits for the top few per cent at the expense of the others a far lesser priority than the good for all, that is the difference.

I have purposefully avoided the selfish-card, but that is the only impression of your position I'm left with. Nothing must stand in the way of your personal success, who cares if someone else gets screwed over of left behind. don't get me wrong, I'm no money-hating hippie and I've done my fair share of corporate life, but I just find the whole ideology you're representing repulsive. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, none of these have to or should be done by the government. There are some private businesses that provide this information to people in exchange for money, and there would be one to fill the hole if the FDA was gone. The government does the exact same thing but gives those businesses much more power than they should have. But yess, the food industry should be required to disclose what is used in its product, and it is.

What do you think then should be the role of the government? What criteria are you using to determine which activities should be regulated? What are the goals of this regulation?

All evidence I've ever come across concerning privatization is neutral or negative. The only thing that usually improves is cost control at the expense of service quality, making the benefit at best a net zero in my eyes.

[IowaSkinsFan]

a

You're right, no one is forcing anyone to eat the fries. No one forced people to smoke smoke cigarettes before their health hazards became known, despite the tobacco industry's best efforts to cover this up. No one is stopping you from buying kid's toys that have lead in them, or laptops with exploding batteries. Completely up to you, but can you really blame the ones who did, if they did not know these things at the time of purchase. I personally would prefer that someone makes sure the stuff I buy doesn't have any unwanted side effects, I don't have time to investigate what is safe and what isn't, and I'm not interested in buying this information from someone else. I shouldn't have to be an expert of all areas just to be a consumer, my time is better spent being productive than worrying about basic shit like that. The safety of products and consumables should be the default, not an afterthought or someone's business edge.

No they shouldn't be a default, and yes, you shouldn't have to be an expert in all areas just to be a consumer. Thats why you pay someone else to provide this information for you, just like we pay the FDA.


There is far too little regulation as is, and the standards are not strict enough. Standards and regulations should create the framework within which businesses must operate, to ensure product safety, fair business practices and other things the system does not intrinsically have nor strive for. The standards and regulations are there to protect the consumer, the citizen, from abuse by corporations, just like the police is protecting them from crime and military from hostile external threats. So far you have failed to convince me there is something innately different about these three, that any of these could be replaced by a private alternative, nor that free market in any way ensures or even endorses these values. You argue that maximization of individual's value benefits everyone, but I fail to see how this happens. What my (arguably intrinsically flawed) intuition tells me, is that human altruism alone does not guarantee that the system is working justly towards a greater good, quite the opposite.

There's a huge difference between the government policing corporate abuse and the police protecting you from crime/military for external threats. In one case, we are being protected from the harm of others. In the other, the government is falsely claiming abuse based on peoples free choices and values. McDonalds isnt abusing anyone by offering unhealthy good, they are actually helping others get something that is valuable to them. Unhealthy isnt as valued as tasty, so people but the food. This isn't what your calling abuse right? And if not, what is?


If we're not actively aiming to ensure the weak are not put in conditions that will kill them, that is, supporting those unable to support themselves, that is the definition of social darwinism. I don't know how to reiterate this more clearly, but I'm in no way advocating forcing anyone to do or not do anything, I am absolutely and vehemently for individual freedoms. I don't see how providing someone the knowledge necessary to make his own fact-based decision and making it harder for him to get screwed over can be described as forcing someone to be a robot, unless you're still just punching the same old haydude. If someone chooses to be e.g. self-destructive knowing all the available information, that's his choice and right.

Your advocating that we are not free to spend our money the way we would like to spend it. You are advocating forcing people to give their money to businesses and other people without anything in return. That is not total individual freedom. I agree with what your saying, I think people should be allowed to be self destructive, I'm wondering who you think is hiding information that makes right choices so hard? You seem to know a lot of this hidden informatio, why doesn't anyone else?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that because the system in no way guarantees features and qualities beneficial for the well-being of the society, the system is broken. I find the maximization of profits for the top few per cent at the expense of the others a far lesser priority than the good for all, that is the difference.

A system that guarantees results in spite of the decisions of its users sounds like a terrible system.

I have purposefully avoided the selfish-card, but that is the only impression of your position I'm left with. Nothing must stand in the way of your personal success, who cares if someone else gets screwed over of left behind. don't get me wrong, I'm no money-hating hippie and I've done my fair share of corporate life, but I just find the whole ideology you're representing repulsive. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As I said before, you don't understand money whatsoever. If I don't make money that means I have helped no one. Making money means that someone has exchanged that money with you, not that you have screwed someone over for it. Laws should be there protecting people from being forced to give money or have money stolen from them.

It pisses me off that you say this because I am so incredibly altrustic. My argument was never to screw anyone over, I want everyone to live the best life possible. So if my ideas aren't the way to do it, call me ill-informed or stupid, not selfish.


What do you think then should be the role of the government? What criteria are you using to determine which activities should be regulated? What are the goals of this regulation?

Almost nothing should be regulated. The government should protect people from harm from others and protect their rights and freedom. The goals of government regulation is to create a result without the changes necessary within the actions and values of the people to create those results. That is not something I want. How people spend money is what regulates the economy.

All evidence I've ever come across concerning privatization is neutral or negative. The only thing that usually improves is cost control at the expense of service quality, making the benefit at best a net zero in my eyes.

[CoccoBill]

It pisses me off that you say this because I am so incredibly altrustic. My argument was never to screw anyone over, I want everyone to live the best life possible. So if my ideas aren't the way to do it, call me ill-informed or stupid, not selfish.

My purpose was not to insult you, nor did I direct the selfishness comment at you, but the ideology you're supporting. One can act in a selfish manner while trying to and fully believing to be altruistic. You say that you want everyone to live the best life possible, but from my viewpoint you're just against everything that's trying to work towards that, or you have a strange definition of "best". To me, one single mother having to undeservingly and unnecessarily struggle to make ends meet is far worse than a thousand John Travolta's not affording their 3rd airplane.

[IowaSkinsFan]

My purpose was not to insult you, nor did I direct the selfishness comment at you, but the ideology you're supporting. One can act in a selfish manner while trying to and fully believing to be altruistic. You say that you want everyone to live the best life possible, but from my viewpoint you're just against everything that's trying to work towards that, or you have a strange definition of "best". To me, one single mother having to undeservingly and unnecessarily struggle to make ends meet is far worse than a thousand John Travolta's not affording their 3rd airplane.

I think I overblew the selfish part. I think my comment I made towards you calling me selfish was stupid and unnecessary.

I think its sick that John Travolta makes a shit load of money, especially because his movies tend to suck. But you believe its undeserved, I don't think it is. John Travolta made that money through the voluntary exchange of wealth. Maybe the people who bought the ticket to see battlefield earth should have spent that money helping a homeless person. To me, it's far more important how someone spends their money than what they do for a living. Their living is only possible because of what others value, and if a couple million people want to pay $10 to see a john travolta movie, than there is nothing wrong with him getting paid a million dollars.

[CoccoBill]

I think its sick that John Travolta makes a shit load of money, especially because his movies tend to suck. But you believe its undeserved, I don't think it is. John Travolta made that money through the voluntary exchange of wealth. Maybe the people who bought the ticket to see battlefield earth should have spent that money helping a homeless person. To me, it's far more important how someone spends their money than what they do for a living. Their living is only possible because of what others value, and if a couple million people want to pay $10 to see a john travolta movie, than there is nothing wrong with him getting paid a million dollars.

This comes right back to the 2. basic assumption, you're assuming that the value acquired equals the value generated. Do all people choosing to watch john travolta's movies do so knowingly and willingly, do all movies and movie stars start from an equal footing, and only gain anything (publicity, fame, money etc.) because they "deserve it". You're assuming that the system cannot and doesn't get manipulated, that no one can gain an unfair advantage over others and all choices made are rational.

You acknowledge that people make mistakes, hence learn. What ensures that value is distributed fairly when mistakes are made? Is it not possible that value is misplaced when mistakes happen, or rather isn't this the definition of a mistake?