Milton Friedman on government and private enterprise

[a500lbgorilla]

Alright, I'm done, peace to everyone.

[a500lbgorilla]

I think you understand it the way I understand it, yes.

I kinda wanted to play with this a bit more, tho

[MadMojoMonkey]

Two people here believe that unprovoked theft or hurt shouldn't be wrong?

IDK who gets to decide "shouldn't."

Whether or not it "should" be wrong is not anything to do with whether or not I want to live in a society in which we all agree to NOT do it. I have no need to glorify my preference to a moral mandate.

[CoccoBill]

We already have the situation you describe we don't want. Economic theory and history show that the freer the market, the less power wielded by the powerful elite.

Yes we do, and rather than making the situation worse by using your suggestion, I'd opt for making it better by limiting lobbying. Where exactly do they show that?

This process is no different than how things would work in a free market of law and a rich person uses his richness to thwart the system. Just like how consumers choose where to eat food, they also would choose which company represents their values of law the most. When the companies drop the ball so hard that they let an obvious molester off, masses of consumers of their products will go elsewhere. This would be an existential crisis and they would make changes or lose.

I'm not talking about fringe cases where someone tries to milk the system, I think your system is flawed by design. The rich would endorse companies that represent the laws most beneficial to them. Where exactly would those masses of consumers go to battle the rich who wield a million times more power than them?

[Renton]

You've got to be kidding me. I made that in earnest, man.

Sorry, I just couldn't see how you would earnestly compare aggravated robbery to someone who chooses to work at a job he doesn't like.

[wufwugy]

Don't pick nits. We're talking about your "law creation/execution/enforcement" bodies and not calling them governments, but it is at the very least strikingly similar and I don't mean to distract from the point by using a word that you can't accept. Please... we're trying to get to the core of things... don't write off my questions over a semantic misstep in my presentation.

You're asking for these governing bodies which are not governments (GBWANGs) to have dynamic regions of enforcement, perhaps up to the level of the bubble of space surrounding their policy holders. You're asking for a monumental logistical nightmare if GBWANGs are not very plainly delineated in some way. Historically, this has been done geographically to avoid confusion and costs.

I'm talking about something much different than government. Government is taxes and mandates handed down from a political elite. I want nothing to do with taxes and mandates handed down from political elites. The banana analogy is important because I'm not claiming that I would like to move from one violence monopoly to another; I would like violence companies to compete in a market.

but I put forth that there is a practical, geographical reason that certain services cannot be acquired equally at all places in the world.

Sure. Assuming equality is foolish.

Why on Earth would the more wealthy party agree to an arbiter which wouldn't always favor themselves?

The way they do that is by creating violence monopolies called governments. Otherwise, they couldn't find an entity that will put them "above the law" since it would be intensely unprofitable.

What happens when one party refuses to yield to any compromise over their legal assertions?

Their door gets crashed in.

What compels you to believe this? Your intuition? ... or is there actual data which at least points in this direction?

Mountains of data. This is one of the main things Friedman discusses.

The food example was refuted. It is at best inconclusive.
There are countless examples of foods which are expensive and costs prevent poor people from acquiring them. I.e. not all foods are available to all socioeconomic groups.
There are countless dining and culinary experiences which can only be had in very specific locations at very specific times, which limits the availability no matter what. I.e. many foods can only be acquired in very specific places.

All of which is to say that if you are suggesting the world's food situation is one of egalitarianism, I dispute this assertion entirely.

As food markets became freer, the benefit to the wealthy has astronomically decreased while the benefit to the poor has astronomically increased. I do not suggest egalitarianism.

@ bold:
Who is "we?"
Where are these areas?

Name em. Food, shelter, clothing, software.

Except for the perfectly legal part. These abuses of the law are exactly that. Abuses. It is not the intended order of things as is written in the laws.

A lot of it is legal.

[wufwugy]

And I don't need a new religion.

I've never seen a religion more worshiped than the state.

[a500lbgorilla]

Sorry, I just couldn't see how you would earnestly compare aggravated robbery to someone who chooses to work at a job he doesn't like.

So what makes anything coercion?

Your own words said that when you're choosing the least bad of all options, it's not coercion. I'm just wondering how you positively identify coercion then.

[a500lbgorilla]

I've never seen a religion more worshiped than the state.

The state does things for me god could never do.

[wufwugy]

Yes we do, and rather than making the situation worse by using your suggestion, I'd opt for making it better by limiting lobbying. Where exactly do they show that?

The irony is that it's not lobbying that's the problem, but government. Take away the lobby and you have a political elite that receives no input from any citizens (except from votes). This includes from experts. It would be like a return to the worst kind of aristocracy in as much as the elite would have no idea what the world for everybody else is like.

Lobbying does give disproportionate influence to special interest groups, but that's better than even worse influence from all but the politicians themselves.

I'm not talking about fringe cases where someone tries to milk the system, I think your system is flawed by design.

Milking the system isn't fringe. Only a tiny amount of laws on our books are not designed to benefit special interest groups.

The rich would endorse companies that represent the laws most beneficial to them. Where exactly would those masses of consumers go to battle the rich who wield a million times more power than them?

"The rich" would wield far less power than that. Indeed it is the poor that would wield the "million times more power" or so. Look at the food industry. The vast, vast, vast majority of what goes on it is catering to the non-rich. The rich have infinitesimal influence on food production, distribution, and consumption in aggregate. As groups, the rich have a very small amount of money compared to the non-rich.

[JKDS]

Coercion is a funny word. The law tends to discuss it in terms of degree.

When a cop in a traffic stop asks you a question, you might feel compelled to answer. A man with a gun, badge, and uniform just forced you to pull over. You're now alone, in an area you may be unfamiliar with. There is also a significant disparity in power and authority here. Nevertheless, the law says that your statement was voluntary. The coercion you felt was minor. Light coercion.

Contrast that to being literally tortured. In that case, your statement is involuntary. Heavy coercion.

Coercion doesn't have to be explicit, and it doesn't have to be voiced. Peer pressure can be coercion. How many people are coerced into donating a kidney to a family member?

[JKDS]

@the mcdonalds example.

Chick Fila made an anti-gay statement years ago. Huge political backlash insued. Their sales increased. No such thing as bad publicity and what not.

The evils that we think people will punish by market forces will not necessarily be punished. In truth, people don't have time to care.

[CoccoBill]

The irony is that it's not lobbying that's the problem, but government. Take away the lobby and you have a political elite that receives no input from any citizens (except from votes). This includes from experts. It would be like a return to the worst kind of aristocracy in as much as the elite would have no idea what the world for everybody else is like.

Lobbying does give disproportionate influence to special interest groups, but that's better than even worse influence from all but the politicians themselves.

That bolded part there is exactly how it's supposed to work. 1 person, 1 vote. Not super PACs, campaign donations, cronyism. I find it ironic that you view people to wield incredible power when they indirectly affect a corrupt McD CEO to resign, yet when the same people directly vote out a corrupt politician, they're completely powerless.

"The rich" would wield far less power than that. Indeed it is the poor that would wield the "million times more power" or so. Look at the food industry. The vast, vast, vast majority of what goes on it is catering to the non-rich. The rich have infinitesimal influence on food production, distribution, and consumption in aggregate. As groups, the rich have a very small amount of money compared to the non-rich.

I already explained why this isn't the case. We were talking about laws here. A rich person has no reason to buy or eat a million times more food than a poor person, but he has every incentive to influence laws and that he can and will do a million times more effectively.

[wufwugy]

@the mcdonalds example.

Chick Fila made an anti-gay statement years ago. Huge political backlash insued. Their sales increased. No such thing as bad publicity and what not.

The evils that we think people will punish by market forces will not necessarily be punished. In truth, people don't have time to care.

If people don't care, then why did Chick-fil-A find increased profits from their anti-gay-marriage statement? It can't be the case that people cared enough to respond to Chick-fil-A and that they don't care.

The example of Chick-fil-A is what we want. Let people support what they value. If we don't do that, then we'll find a mismatch of the two that create all sorts of unforced errors. Why is it better practice to let people support what they value once every two years (at the ballot box), but not many times a day every day?

[JKDS]

If people don't care, then why did Chick-fil-A find increased profits from their anti-gay-marriage statement? It can't be the case that people cared enough to respond to Chick-fil-A and that they don't care.

The example of Chick-fil-A is what we want. Let people support what they value. If we don't do that, then we'll find a mismatch of the two that create all sorts of unforced errors. Why is it better practice to let people support what they value once every two years (at the ballot box), but not many times a day every day?

Because that's how publicity works. Advertising = profits. Their name was on prime tv for several days. The issue itself was irrelevant.

Like trump.

[wufwugy]

That bolded part there is exactly how it's supposed to work. 1 person, 1 vote. Not super PACs, campaign donations, cronyism. I find it ironic that you view people to wield incredible power when they indirectly affect a corrupt McD CEO to resign, yet when the same people directly vote out a corrupt politician, they're completely powerless.

I said things after the bold that further unpacked the situation. If you want a society where the only thing that affects politicians is a rare vote, you're asking for a society where the political elites are far more divergent from citizens than they are today. In addition, it is not the case that it's supposed to be just one man one vote. Lobbying is integral to a healthy democracy. All these scientific experts that you have told me many times you want to influence governmental policy, their most important tool to influence government is the lobby.

I already explained why this isn't the case. We were talking about laws here. A rich person has no reason to buy or eat a million times more food than a poor person, but he has every incentive to influence laws and that he can and will do a million times more effectively.

Lucky for us free markets deteriorate the mechanism by which a rich person would influence law to favor him. The amount of influence by the non-rich would vastly overpower that of the rich, and the last thing the non-rich would support is special treatment of the rich.

[wufwugy]

Because that's how publicity works. Advertising = profits. Their name was on prime tv for several days. The issue itself was irrelevant.

That's quite a theory you got there. While your point does typically account for small changes, it's not something that can be said to supersede. Otherwise, that would imply that Chick-fil-A could commit mass murder on TV every day and because it increases their air time their sales grow. Clearly that wouldn't happen.

Regardless, no matter the reason people chose Chick-fil-A, their values were still best reflected by their consumption choices.

[JKDS]

That's quite a theory you got there. While your point does typically account for small changes, it's not something that can be said to supersede. Otherwise, that would imply that Chick-fil-A could commit mass murder on TV every day and because it increases their air time their sales grow. Clearly that wouldn't happen.

Regardless, no matter the reason people chose Chick-fil-A, their values were still best reflected by their consumption choices.

You believe that if advertising is trumped by values in extreme cases, that advertising cannot trump values in other cases?

Even so, why would the decision to buy a product necessarily reflect a persons view on prohibited conduct? Americans are pretty adamantly against slavery and child labor, but we still buy blood diamonds and I phones without a care in the world

[CoccoBill]

I said things after the bold that further unpacked the situation. If you want a society where the only thing that affects politicians is a rare vote, you're asking for a society where the political elites are far more divergent from citizens than they are today. In addition, it is not the case that it's supposed to be just one man one vote. Lobbying is integral to a healthy democracy. All these scientific experts that you have told me many times you want to influence governmental policy, their most important tool to influence government is the lobby.

Obviously not all special interest representation is necessarily bad, you seem to be only concentrating on some aspects of it that are or can be positive, and completely ignore all the negative effects. There's really no need for lobbying, if the legislative process includes hearing the scientific experts.

https://theconversation.com/how-the-...an-votes-40394
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ocracy/390822/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nd-corruption/

Lucky for us free markets deteriorate the mechanism by which a rich person would influence law to favor him. The amount of influence by the non-rich would vastly overpower that of the rich, and the last thing the non-rich would support is special treatment of the rich.

Feel free to chime in what those mechanisms are regarding a free market of laws, and how they'd deteriorate the influence of the rich.

[wufwugy]

You believe that if advertising is trumped by values in extreme cases, that advertising cannot trump values in other cases?

I don't think advertising trumps values; it influences values. If somebody doesn't want to buy a product because he believes the company engages in some bad behavior, yet ads convince him otherwise, he went from valuing not having the product to valuing having the product; he went from valuing not endorsing the bad behavior to valuing endorsing the bad behavior.

Even so, why would the decision to buy a product necessarily reflect a persons view on prohibited conduct? Americans are pretty adamantly against slavery and child labor, but we still buy blood diamonds and I phones without a care in the world

I wouldn't suggest it works perfectly. It's not like government has stopped these practices either.

One of the points of my proposal is so that those who support an ideal/policy are the ones who pay the cost of that ideal/policy. For example, Arizona is full of people who vote that weed should be illegal and dealing should carry some harsh punishment. Do these people bear any of the cost of their choices in a direct manner? No, they don't. Their ideal is too abstract; it's too filtered; the cost is dumped in other places and is hard to follow. Let's contrast this to a system where policies are enacted only though direct choice by the consumer. In that case, every month a bill would show up from their law company (Company A). Maybe they don't quite like how high the bill is, so the next time on the radio a different law company (Company B) is advertising, they pay more attention. Let's say the Company B ad says its policies are the same as Company A's except the average cost for customers is 30% less! By what sorcery does Company B achieve this magical savings for its customers? By not criminalizing weed! Company B doesn't have all these outlandish costs that go along with investigating, prosecuting, jailing, and policing anti-weed ideals that it transfers the savings to the customers! So, the customer is sitting there, astonished at how much criminalized weed costs him, saying to himself that even though he doesn't really like weed and he doesn't want it around his kids, criminalized weed is costing him a whopping $250 per month. He decides to investigate Company B further because he thinks he's paying way too much for punishing people for smoking weed.

Morals carry costs too. The more concrete and direct to the moralizer we can make them, the better IMO.

[wufwugy]

Feel free to chime in what those mechanisms are regarding a free market of laws, and how they'd deteriorate the influence of the rich.

How many companies do you think could successfully run a business model that lets its customers get away with murder? The amount of money that would flow into companies putting a stop to that would be enormous. As groups, the rich elites have far, far less capital than the non-rich masses.

The peoples' ideal of fairness is so colossal that we've created governments that at least nominally are meant to treat everybody fairly. I don't see reason to believe that this ideal would disappear if we funded law through choice instead of taxes.

[Renton]

So what makes anything coercion?

Your own words said that when you're choosing the least bad of all options, it's not coercion. I'm just wondering how you positively identify coercion then.

If there was a Venn diagram, the outermost all-encompassing oval would be "choices," within that oval would be "choices between bad alternatives," and entirely within that oval would be "coercion." Bad alternatives is the default state of existence. You might say that the garment worker is "coerced by nature," but there is something very different about that and being coerced by another person or group.

It's not even really worth much to describe something as a choice between bad alternatives because the word "bad" has really no meaning. There is only better and worse. Improvement and decline. If a garment worker leaves one job where he was working 80 hours a week for 80 dollars a month for another in which he works 70 hours a week for 90 dollars a month, his life improves dramatically. But a middle-class white person might still describe his situation as coerced by nature/environment.

I'm probably not articulating well why this situation is so distinct from being robbed at knifepoint, but it is very different. Maybe it is the fact that when being robbed, your alternatives are both provided by a third party. He robs you or he stabs you. It's no longer man vs environment but man vs man.

[CoccoBill]

How many companies do you think could successfully run a business model that lets its customers get away with murder? The amount of money that would flow into companies putting a stop to that would be enormous. As groups, the rich elites have far, far less capital than the non-rich masses.

The peoples' ideal of fairness is so colossal that we've created governments that at least nominally are meant to treat everybody fairly. I don't see reason to believe that this ideal would disappear if we funded law through choice instead of taxes.

The rich would probably put their money on those law arbiters that most support their own well-being, right? Those laws could very well be disadvantageous to the interests of the not rich, right? The most powerful Law Inc would be the one with the most supporters, and the rich can give a million times more support than the not rich. Your suggested mechanisms might thwart some outrageous acts, like getting away murder or bringing back slavery, but I don't see anything changing the fact that the richer you are, the more powerful you are. The whole point of democracy was to change that, you know, all men are equal. If people's ideals of fairness were so colossal, we wouldn't need laws in the first place.

[Renton]

IDK who gets to decide "shouldn't."

Whether or not it "should" be wrong is not anything to do with whether or not I want to live in a society in which we all agree to NOT do it. I have no need to glorify my preference to a moral mandate.

If all of the members of FTR formed a state and were writing the new state's constitution, the first thing we would all be able to agree on is that the state should protect private property. There would no doubt be vehement disagreement about everything else, but that much we would all agree on. It is the basis for civilized society.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If all of the members of FTR formed a state and were writing the new state's constitution, the first thing we would all be able to agree on is that the state should protect private property. There would no doubt be vehement disagreement about everything else, but that much we would all agree on. It is the basis for civilized society.

No... I would agree that our state will protect private property, but not that a or the state should do so.

It is a basis for civilization, but not the basis. There many examples in anthropology of civilizations which did not have a concept of private property. This becomes less and less common as the population grows, but among small groups, private property is not too relevant. Within the family household, it is more common for items to be communally owned rather than have a specific owner, even if some items tend to have a specific user.

[a500lbgorilla]

If there was a Venn diagram, the outermost all-encompassing oval would be "choices," within that oval would be "choices between bad alternatives," and entirely within that oval would be "coercion." Bad alternatives is the default state of existence. You might say that the garment worker is "coerced by nature," but there is something very different about that and being coerced by another person or group.

It's not even really worth much to describe something as a choice between bad alternatives because the word "bad" has really no meaning. There is only better and worse. Improvement and decline. If a garment worker leaves one job where he was working 80 hours a week for 80 dollars a month for another in which he works 70 hours a week for 90 dollars a month, his life improves dramatically. But a middle-class white person might still describe his situation as coerced by nature/environment.

Right, so its easy to frame everything in terms of coercion. Because framing things and then integrating new information into the frame isn't difficult at all. What's difficult is framing things correctly - for that you need some mechanism that could show if your framing was wrong.

There's really no way to show that we're being pushed away from bad choices through coercion or attracted to good choices through free-choice, or if we're acting according to some other logic entirely.

I'm probably not articulating well why this situation is so distinct from being robbed at knifepoint, but it is very different. Maybe it is the fact that when being robbed, your alternatives are both provided by a third party. He robs you or he stabs you. It's no longer man vs environment but man vs man.

It's very different, but how is it different?

I personally see that it's very different as well and I see that this framing in terms of free-choice/coercion is not equipped to deal with it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Man v Man vrs Man v Environment.

Man is part of the environment, though. So that's another frame that's going to break down if you dig far enough.

I prefer to see that some Men can coax or control the choices of others, for whatever reason. And my negative reaction to being coaxed or controlled doesn't change the fact that I'm being coaxed or controlled, unless I can actually find a way to not be coaxed or controlled.

When a guy puts a knife to you, you could fight him, or reason with him, or bribe him, or submit to him, or whatever else, but if his knife trumps your god-given right to not be threatened by a knife, so be it.

[wufwugy]

The rich would probably put their money on those law arbiters that most support their own well-being, right? Those laws could very well be disadvantageous to the interests of the not rich, right? The most powerful Law Inc would be the one with the most supporters, and the rich can give a million times more support than the not rich. Your suggested mechanisms might thwart some outrageous acts, like getting away murder or bringing back slavery, but I don't see anything changing the fact that the richer you are, the more powerful you are. The whole point of democracy was to change that, you know, all men are equal. If people's ideals of fairness were so colossal, we wouldn't need laws in the first place.

I'm not sure how to stop that. Maybe that's what some viewed the intent of democracy is (I doubt founders of these civilizations thought that though), but the effect isn't egalitarian. Even so, I don't support egalitarianism. Divisions of influence are good. Somebody who produces more probably should have more influence. Ofc within reason.

[CoccoBill]

That's exactly why democracy came about and the whole point of it, people got fed up being tossed about by monarchs and oligarchs. Ancient greek "demokratia", rule of the people. Of course even still the rich will have tremendously more influence than the poor in many ways, just through their sheer purchasing power, but their influence in politics and common matters is reigned in. Personally I see no reason to give any extra power to the producers, why should we? Just having the profits should be incentive enough to keep producing, the ability to trample on other people's rights should not be needed.

Out of curiosity, do you still feel and think about this matter the exact same way as when we started this convo? Do you think a government is absolutely not needed, everything would work out splendidly if all aspects of government were privatized?

[wufwugy]

That's exactly why democracy came about and the whole point of it, people got fed up being tossed about by monarchs and oligarchs. Ancient greek "demokratia", rule of the people. Of course even still the rich will have tremendously more influence than the poor in many ways, just through their sheer purchasing power, but their influence in politics and common matters is reigned in. Personally I see no reason to give any extra power to the producers, why should we? Just having the profits should be incentive enough to keep producing, the ability to trample on other people's rights should not be needed.

A problem with this is that if producers have as much influence as non-producers, we'd likely end up with less production. Science experts should have more influence on science issues than non-science experts. I'm mostly making points on why democracy is flawed. Egalitarianism of political influence is bad but so is division. This is one reason I argue against systems of political power in the first place.

Out of curiosity, do you still feel and think about this matter the exact same way as when we started this convo? Do you think a government is absolutely not needed, everything would work out splendidly if all aspects of government were privatized?

What points do you think should have persuaded me to a different idea than the one I brought?

FWIW, most of what I think goes on in these discussions is people talking past each other. Obviously we try to not do that, but when you're not inside somebody's head, it's tough to translate the real point they're making from the words they use. For example, most of what I do here is explain the reason behind my positions because the counterpoints made by others are ones I view has being answered by the reason.

A way to hit me where it hurts is to do something like argue that free markets create their own unique inefficiencies. For example, the media. I don't have an answer for the media. State-run media is obviously awful for obvious reasons, but privately run media is garbage too. An argument can be made that totally free markets might not work because the way humans consume media may ultimately promote destructive ideas, and maybe in a totally free market there would be an unintended consequence of our media values engendering uniquely dysfunctional ideas. I don't know if I agree with that, but I know that I don't have an answer right now. It's because of things like this that I entertain the idea that perhaps Plato was right (and so were the American Founding Fathers), a healthy society needs a sort of Philosopher-Kings to keep the masses from turning the whole thing into a shitshow because the only media that sells is shitshow media.

[wufwugy]

That's exactly why democracy came about and the whole point of it, people got fed up being tossed about by monarchs and oligarchs. Ancient greek "demokratia", rule of the people.

The intentions were not to give the masses say. Every origin I've seen was about giving a small group of people political power.

[CoccoBill]

FWIW, most of what I think goes on in these discussions is people talking past each other. Obviously we try to not do that, but when you're not inside somebody's head, it's tough to translate the real point they're making from the words they use. For example, most of what I do here is explain the reason behind my positions because the counterpoints made by others are ones I view has being answered by the reason.

You have a point here, I feel that's exactly what's happening. To criticize your explaining, a couple examples:

"if producers have as much influence as non-producers, we'd likely end up with less production" - Why? We're talking about political influence here, and I just said the profits should surely be enough motivation to keep producing. Did you consider that or even read it?
"Science experts should have more influence on science issues than non-science experts." - Why? And I disagree, they absolutely shouldn't. Scientific facts should have influence, not experts.
"Egalitarianism of political influence is bad but so is division." - Why?

Most of the time I see you just stating things, and if you give explanations they're allegorical examples or catchphrases.

The intentions were not to give the masses say. Every origin I've seen was about giving a small group of people political power.

Link to one? From everything I've read and understood it's the exact opposite. People in ancient Greece wanted to move away from having a single person or small groups of people have all the power (kings, emperors, tribal councils, village elders). For practical reasons it's not possible to have everyone always vote for everything, so representative democracy was born.

You know, half the time I think you're just trolling, but that's ok since I don't mind trying to see my thoughts from different perspectives, and if nothing else, this is a great way to practice patience. Occasionally I have also learned something new.

[wufwugy]

"if producers have as much influence as non-producers, we'd likely end up with less production" - Why? We're talking about political influence here, and I just said the profits should surely be enough motivation to keep producing. Did you consider that or even read it?

I consider and read multiple times the stuff I respond to.

The profits are enough motivation to produce. The question is how do we get the greatest potential and incentives to do so. Politicians are amazing at outlawing things, which includes production of products consumers want. Producers spend a bunch in lobbying just to try to make what they want to do legal. Note that I'm not saying that this means what producers want is right, but I'm showing what the law is affects production and producers tend to lobby for laws that allow for more (of course not all do).

"Science experts should have more influence on science issues than non-science experts." - Why? And I disagree, they absolutely shouldn't. Scientific facts should have influence, not experts.

Who reveals, understands, explains, and implements the science? Regarding law, it doesn't matter what the science says if there are no experts putting the ideas in the minds of the lawmakers. It takes far more than the existence of a research paper to get the knowledge into the political sphere and law.

"Egalitarianism of political influence is bad but so is division." - Why?

Some examples of egalitarianism being bad are above. Not everybody has the same skills and same knowledge. We probably have the lobby to thank for how far along in science our government reflects. For example, in the creation vs evolution thing in the US, if it was just "one man one vote" creationism would be much more represented in our politicians and laws than it is. But partly because some biology experts lobby, politicians tend to have a much more robust understanding of the issue than voters.

As for divisions being bad, I'm not sure that needs explaining since the things you're saying suggest you already agree with that.

Most of the time I see you just stating things, and if you give explanations they're allegorical examples or catchphrases.

Do I really use catchphrases? As far as allegory, I'd say I use analogy the most and sometimes maybe parable. I use analogy because I think that's one of the most effective ways to dissect these issues in discussion.

Link to one? From everything I've read and understood it's the exact opposite. People in ancient Greece wanted to move away from having a single person or small groups of people have all the power (kings, emperors, tribal councils, village elders). For practical reasons it's not possible to have everyone always vote for everything, so representative democracy was born.

From the wiki on Athenian democracy:

"to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen who owned land and was not a slave, and the number of these "varied between 30,000 and 50,000 out of a total population of around 250,000 to 300,000.""

American democracy was similar (our forefathers copied the Greeks in lots of ways). IIRC the estimate one of my humanities professors gave was that only ~7% of early Americans were eligible to vote. But add to that this: it could be said that only a small portion of the early American federal government functioned through some measure of direct democracy. That would be the voters electing representatives to send to Washington. While that isn't technically direct democracy, it's the closest element to it that the federal government had. All the others, the Senate, the President, and the Supreme Court Jurists, were nominated by politicians and electors themselves, not elected by voters.

You know, half the time I think you're just trolling, but that's ok since I don't mind trying to see my thoughts from different perspectives, and if nothing else, this is a great way to practice patience. Occasionally I have also learned something new.

I don't troll. Unless I'm being a sarcastic smart ass and nothing else. That's probably the closest to it I get.

[wufwugy]

I'm reading Influence: Science and Practice, and I came across this gem:

students at the University of Missouri
listened to a recorded speech that supported the idea of requiring all seniors to pass
comprehensive examinations before they would be allowed to graduate. The issue
affected some of them personally, because they were told that the exams could go into
effect in the next year—before they had the chance to graduate. Of course, this news
made them want to analyze the arguments carefully. However, for other subjects in the
study, the issue had little personal importance—because they were told that the exams
would not begin until long after they had graduated; consequently, they had no strong
need to carefully consider the argument's validity. The study's results were quite
straightforward: Those subjects with no personal stake in the topic were primarily
persuaded by the speaker's expertise in the field of education; they used the "If an expert
said so, it must be true" rule, paying little attention to the strength of the speaker's
arguments. Those subjects for whom the issue mattered personally, on the other hand,
ignored the speaker's expertise and were persuaded primarily by the quality of the
speaker's arguments.

The more something affects a person, the more likely their response will be of reason and detail. The less something affects a person, the more likely their response will be heuristic. It is in part because of this that I argue against regulation in markets. Consumers use a greater deal of reason regarding their unique choices than regulators using broad brushes do.

[Savy]

That experiment sounds bad.

The group of people who this has no effect on I can imagine taking a more meh approach that sounds logical. People tend to care less about things which don't affect them as opposed to those that do.

The group who this had an effect on doesn't give us a result as to whether or not they agreed or disagreed with the speaker nor does it given any context on the solidness of his argument, did they repeat this multiple times with different validity of arguments? To me it sounds like the group of people who this had an effect on and made their life harder (whether better or worse for the actual situation) and they didn't like it so as a result were more likely to go against what was being said. To imply this is down to reason seems false. It seems more likely that they took a stance (something the other group was less likely to do) and then created their arguments against it. Not the same thing as being more logical or reasoned.

[wufwugy]

That experiment sounds bad.

The group of people who this has no effect on I can imagine taking a more meh approach that sounds logical. People tend to care less about things which don't affect them as opposed to those that do.

The group who this had an effect on doesn't give us a result as to whether or not they agreed or disagreed with the speaker nor does it given any context on the solidness of his argument, did they repeat this multiple times with different validity of arguments? To me it sounds like the group of people who this had an effect on and made their life harder (whether better or worse for the actual situation) and they didn't like it so as a result were more likely to go against what was being said. To imply this is down to reason seems false. It seems more likely that they took a stance (something the other group was less likely to do) and then created their arguments against it. Not the same thing as being more logical or reasoned.

I don't disagree that the study could be flawed. The point appears to be that those it did not affect didn't investigate while those it did affect investigated. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it more reason because it could also be the case the students it affected used heuristics after accounting for more detail. Even so I don't think that is a counter to the point that those more affected by things put more effort into those things. Perhaps it's reasonable to assume that one of the elements of the "more effort" is more reason.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I have plenty of firsthand accounts which lead me to the STRONG conclusion that the only thing 99% of college students want from college is for it to be over so they can get on with their lives. They have no real knowledge of or respect for the value of money and what they are paying for. They have no respect for the value of learning, they don't want to learn... they just want to get A's. As we force them to learn in order to get A's, they fight us at every step to teach them less and still give them A's.

It is of no surprise to me that a study found that when you told people you were going to make their lives more complicated, they perked their attention right up and started arguing the validity of the assertions.

[wufwugy]

Doesn't surprise me either.

[Savy]

I don't disagree that the study could be flawed. The point appears to be that those it did not affect didn't investigate while those it did affect investigated. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it more reason because it could also be the case the students it affected used heuristics after accounting for more detail. Even so I don't think that is a counter to the point that those more affected by things put more effort into those things. Perhaps it's reasonable to assume that one of the elements of the "more effort" is more reason.

I think your argument based on this experiment is incredibly flimsy & not what the experiment was set out to show. If it was it's a really piss poor experiment & the extrapolations are insane. From a book that sounds like it is somewhat scientific I can't believe it is.

The fact that people put more effort into things that effect them negatively strikes me as somewhat obvious. That this makes them more logical, reasoned or whatever does not. In fact I'd say that the opposite is true. If you look at specific circumstances where negative things happen or are going to happen to people it is in those situations that people tend to react poorly and illogically. People getting more involved in an argument doesn't make them more likely to come to the "correct" answer. If anything the opposite is true after taking a stance on something how many people do you know that change their mind?

If you take a child who is growing up with an unhealthy diet that is having negative effects for that child, bad teeth, fat, diabetes and all the other bad things when you tell that child that those things need to change and as a parent if you do change those things you always experience resistance from that child and that child will create arguments to make out that the change isn't a good one.

It's basically the same experiment too, all you have to do is tell those children that other children will have to change their diets but not them and they'll probably see how it's a good thing for them but I imagine generally they just won't care very much.

[Savy]

To follow on your argument doesn't make sense anyway.

You agree that if something is negatively effecting you then that person cares more. You would also argue that by someone making decisions for a group of people rather than those individuals making the decisions themselves the group has a more negative outcome which should make them care more about every decision being taken but at the same time you're saying people making decisions for you stops you engaging. Not true.

[wufwugy]

I think your argument based on this experiment is incredibly flimsy & not what the experiment was set out to show. If it was it's a really piss poor experiment & the extrapolations are insane. From a book that sounds like it is somewhat scientific I can't believe it is.

The fact that people put more effort into things that effect them negatively strikes me as somewhat obvious. That this makes them more logical, reasoned or whatever does not. In fact I'd say that the opposite is true. If you look at specific circumstances where negative things happen or are going to happen to people it is in those situations that people tend to react poorly and illogically. People getting more involved in an argument doesn't make them more likely to come to the "correct" answer. If anything the opposite is true after taking a stance on something how many people do you know that change their mind?

If you take a child who is growing up with an unhealthy diet that is having negative effects for that child, bad teeth, fat, diabetes and all the other bad things when you tell that child that those things need to change and as a parent if you do change those things you always experience resistance from that child and that child will create arguments to make out that the change isn't a good one.

It's basically the same experiment too, all you have to do is tell those children that other children will have to change their diets but not them and they'll probably see how it's a good thing for them but I imagine generally they just won't care very much.

I agree. The study on the surface looks like it could use some help.

I haven't made an argument about what the study is showing, but instead repeated what the author of the books says it shows. I made an argument regarding how this is related to the stuff we debate on this forum all the time. The book has been highly touted by people here so I figured I would mention this.

As for my argument in how this relates to economics, all the study has to show for my point is that people more affected by something put more effort into analyzing that thing. According to the author, in this study, those who were not affected used a heuristic in assessing that thing while those who were affected used more than that heuristic. However, I do agree with you that based on poor design it could be the case that those more affected used a different cognitive tool equally as devoid of critical thinking as those not affected.

[Savy]

I'm attaching the argument to you as a result of you posting it & it not being clear to me the line between what is your thought and what is the books. It's somewhat irrelevant whose argument it is though, it isn't a personal thing. Like most things on this forum it's just something to talk about a bit before the next topic comes up.

[wufwugy]

You agree that if something is negatively effecting you then that person cares more.

I don't posit that the effect has to be negative. It simply has to be more relevant to you than to others.

You would also argue that by someone making decisions for a group of people rather than those individuals making the decisions themselves the group has a more negative outcome which should make them care more about every decision being taken but at the same time you're saying people making decisions for you stops you engaging. Not true.

I can't tell what your point is.

[wufwugy]

I tend to assume that all psychology studies are poorly designed. That's gotta be a hard field to conduct research.

[MadMojoMonkey]

As for my argument in how this relates to economics, all the study has to show for my point is that people more affected by something put more effort into analyzing that thing.

I wish.

Have you met people?

People fighting a change don't necessarily analyze the change. They analyze self-defense against change, and that can take many forms, only one of which is to seek the greatest good for the greatest number, no matter the personal cost.

Sometimes, the extent of their analysis is led solely by confirmation bias.
Sometimes, they only care about minimizing their own involvement.

[wufwugy]

I wish.

Have you met people?

People fighting a change don't necessarily analyze the change. They analyze self-defense against change, and that can take many forms, only one of which is to seek the greatest good for the greatest number, no matter the personal cost.

Sometimes, the extent of their analysis is led solely by confirmation bias.
Sometimes, they only care about minimizing their own involvement.

You're right that people use all sorts of cognitive tools of questionable quality.

In aggregate the effect that the affected are better at getting results than the unaffected seems intuitive. An example that I think shows this intuition is the question: "which is better at hiring plumbers: individuals using their own money and who own the toilets or bureaucrats who live many miles away and don't know the plumbers and haven't used the toilets and are using other peoples' money?"

[CoccoBill]

In aggregate the effect that the affected are better at getting results than the unaffected seems intuitive. An example that I think shows this intuition is the question: "which is better at hiring plumbers: individuals using their own money and who own the toilets or bureaucrats who live many miles away and don't know the plumbers and haven't used the toilets and are using other peoples' money?"

I'd concur that they're probably far better at getting results. Whether those results are more unbiased, accurate or rational is an entirely different thing. The masterly individuals and the lamentable bureaucrats both aim to arrive at the same result, the best bang for the buck plumber that satisfies their set minimum criteria. The individual most likely picks one at random or asks their friends for recommendations, while the bureaucrat sets up a public competitive bidding with detailed requirements, terms and sanctions in the agreement. Everyone can judge for themselves which is more likely to arrive at a better result.

[MadMojoMonkey]

In aggregate the effect that the affected are better at getting results than the unaffected seems intuitive.

I don't know how you can say "seems intuitive" as an argument for anything and not cringe.

Intuition is subjective.

The years of armchair physicists didn't yield much technology. They had ideas, but w/o experimenting and testing those ideas, little came of it. Plenty of what they deemed "intuitive" was flat out wrong, and this is long before the actually counter-intuitive discoveries of Einstein's relativity and Quantum mechanics.

It is only when we fight our damnedest to disprove our intuitions that we can begin to determine if they're worth anything.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Upon re-reading my prior post, I just want to say:

Hi, wuf! I missed you while you weren't posting for a few days.

Hope that post doesn't seem too judgemental.
I see that it is kinda direct and less cordial than I usually try for.

[wufwugy]

I don't know how you can say "seems intuitive" as an argument for anything and not cringe.

It must be used sparingly indeed, or perhaps not at all.

I'm trying out new things. The appeal to intuition is something several of my professors have done. As far as being a persuasive technique, I venture a guess that if it seems intuitive to the listener, then the point lands, but if it doesn't seem intuitive, the point doesn't land.

Missed you too, holmes. My vacation was marvelous.

[wufwugy]

I'd concur that they're probably far better at getting results. Whether those results are more unbiased, accurate or rational is an entirely different thing.

I agree with that.

I also think that those at the bureaucrat level could actually be more reasoned than those at the individual consumption level, yet still get worse results. It was probably wrong for me to claim that being more affected means more reason. I should have instead said something along the lines of being more affected means more assessment of the most relevant details.

[CoccoBill]

I think you're looking for "being more affected means more involved". Not being affected by the outcome lowering involvement and rigor in the process does sound intuitively and emotionally appealing, but that's far from the whole truth. It's good to keep in mind that every bureaucrat is also a citizen, and directly affected by many of the results themselves. Further, I would argue that the bureaucrat has a higher level of expertise, more resources and more sophisticated tools to weigh the issue than the average citizen. Being more involved doesn't necessarily mean better results in part due to all the psychological biases we have, it might be the opposite. There are exceptions of course, some people will invest a lot of their time to study issues critical to them, but on average people don't often even know what the most relevant details are, because they lack the expertise. If you're highly vested in the issue your emotions tend to get in the way, being impartial and therefore more calculated and rational might often bring better results.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the bureaucrat will get worse results than an average consumer/citizen, but I think that would require a fuckup of some serious scale on the bureaucrat's part. Those do happen and it is an issue, but I'd still maintain that even with an occasional hiccup, bureaucrats do a better job and act more "rationally", by which I mean achieving results closest to the intended.

[wufwugy]

I made a slight mistake in framing this as bureaucrat vs consumer. In this frame, there are lots of obvious ways that a bureaucrat may be better equipped (like the laundry chute example). Luckily, I did this just a couple days ago, and the frame I've been supporting since before then is different: bureaucracy vs private enterprise (as a whole). In that situation, private enterprise has the tools to deal with what each individual citizen doesn't.

[CoccoBill]

So you mean you draw the wrong conclusion in post #334 where you started this discussion?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Whether in bureaucracy or private enterprise... people are still selfish and fallible. (I mean selfish in the sense of wuf's posited "rational actors" where there is no such thing as true altruism, since you are your own person who chooses their own choices for their own ends.)

Some people are wicked smaht, while others are mediocre of smartitude. It's not like any group has a lock down on intelligence... or the lack thereof.


I am finding it hard to reconcile that increased attention can be directly correlated to increased effectiveness of choice. This seems a crude and high-variance predictor of choice-outcome quality... so much so as to be not worth mentioning. Am I missing something?

[wufwugy]

So you mean you draw the wrong conclusion in post #334 where you started this discussion?

No, but I did use ambiguous wording. The point stands within the frame of bureaucracy vs private entities, but I accidentally used the frame of bureaucrat vs consumer.

[wufwugy]

I am finding it hard to reconcile that increased attention can be directly correlated to increased effectiveness of choice. This seems a crude and high-variance predictor of choice-outcome quality... so much so as to be not worth mentioning. Am I missing something?

It is the case on average.

If we imagine a diagram of how this would look in the field of physics (from birth and in totality), on the x-axis we could put attention and on the y-axis we could put results. They would go to infinity and the origin would be 0. As we increase the quantity of attention given to physics problems by researchers/people, the results certainly would increase as well. However, the increasing trend wouldn't be smooth. It would likely include all sorts of dips, but still the aggregate trend would be increasing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It is the case on average.

Says who?
Pics or GTFO.
Proof or STFU.
Compel me it's our reality or admit you made it up.

I gave a (I thought) fluent account of how people are selfish and prone to make mistakes, and that despite them spending more time on some things, they may still get those things totally wrong.
Do me the same respect, please?

It is worth noting that many people can spend years on some problem not solving it, despite their ridiculous intelligence. Then some untrained jerk comes along and just solves it in no time, w/o even really trying. Time is not a reliable factor. Or if it is, it is dramatically clouded by other factors.

If we imagine a diagram of how this would look in the field of physics (from birth and in totality), on the x-axis we could put attention and on the y-axis we could put results. They would go to infinity and the origin would be 0.

I can imagine a lot of things, but I don't think this is headed in a productive direction.

How are we quantifying 'attention' on the x-axis? What are the units? Is it merely time spent or is it something more?

As we increase the quantity of attention given to physics problems by researchers/people, the results certainly would increase as well. However, the increasing trend wouldn't be smooth. It would likely include all sorts of dips, but still the aggregate trend would be increasing.

You have certainty about things which are definitively unknown.
Is this one of your "figures of speech" or do you actually believe this?

Assuming you believe it...

Even if this was a descriptor of physics (it is not for dozens of reasons - e.g. String hypotheses, et. al.), it is a false comparison to talk about physics as an example of psychology or economics without delineating the paths of correlation and stating where they diverge. I mean... there may be fields for which your analogy would hold true, but that has little bearing on the weight you're trying to attach to your statement. You are trying to generalize from a specific to the general, but that is not often doable in 1 step. A generalization does not necessarily hold in the general sense just because we can find a place where it holds in a specific sense.

Anyway... people can think themselves out of a good answer and into a bad answer. It happens during every exam. While grading, you'll see the correct answer erased out and replaced with an incorrect answer. More time (attention) did not yield better decisions.

[wufwugy]

Two things:

I'm speaking in terms of aggregates.

I was unclear with the diagram. As x approaches infinity, there could be a global maximum and y values could dip below 0 and decrease forever. I should have been clear that I am talking to how things have been and how things appear to be now for human endeavors. The more attention we throw at problems, the better the results (in aggregate). This can be viewed as intuitive with the following: imagine a future with double the number of physicists working on physics and one with half the number of physicists working on physics. Which one is more likely to produce better results regarding understanding of physics?

[CoccoBill]

No, but I did use ambiguous wording. The point stands within the frame of bureaucracy vs private entities, but I accidentally used the frame of bureaucrat vs consumer.

Ok, I see. So what is the parallel between the private enterprises/entities and the students at the University of Missouri?

[wufwugy]

Private entities are by nature closer to the problems, have the most skin in the game, and have the most relevant details.

The University of Missouri study is an example showing on the micro scale that when people are more affected by something, they put more attention into that thing. The idea that this doesn't change as the scale increases is one element for why I argue against bureaucratic regulation. Private entities are better equipped to handle problems that affect them in the same way that the UM students who were affected by the new problem were better equipped to handle it (by way of not using the heuristic of somebody unaffected, according to the author).

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm speaking in terms of aggregates.

If you agree that a single person doesn't necessarily make better choices when they spend more time on analyzing that choice, then I think you'll agree that it is also not certain that any group of people will necessarily make better choices when they spend more time.

An aggregate of frat boys thinks this discussion is totally gay. They have had plenty of time to draw their conclusions. In a raging fit of bookkeeping they actually documented their opinion of us and posted it on a bulletin board. However, it was an unflattering stick figure with his head unceremoniously deposited into his own posterior, so I wont share it here.

Seriously, though.
Any aggregate can develop an echo chamber of ideas which shape the course of their collective progress. Whether they move toward their benefit or not can not be definitively asserted based on numbers.

I was unclear with the diagram. As x approaches infinity, there could be a global maximum and y values could dip below 0 and decrease forever.

"It shows an increasing trend, but maybe not gonna keep increasing, so I dunno." -wuf
Then what's the point of this diagram?

I should have been clear that I am talking to how things have been and how things appear to be now for human endeavors. The more attention we throw at problems, the better the results (in aggregate).

What are you even talking about?!

Now in human endeavors: war, genocide, exploitation of children, sex trafficking, etc.

I'd say the results are not stellar. More to the point, it's not like anything on that list is less than centuries old.

I mean, sure, technology and medicine are good examples of rather continuous progress RECENTLY, but they took a real hit in the middle ages. The Romans were the height of technology, art and nation-building until they hit a run of poor administrators. This "constant progress" you talk about is quite possibly an illusion of our place between dark ages. Given a few really bad administrators, progress is dust.

There are plenty of problems that we (humans in aggregate) could definitely solve, but we choose not to solve out of selfish disconnect from the horrors of other people's reality.

This can be viewed as intuitive with the following:

Whether or not something is intuitive is nothing to do with nothing.
Even if I share your intuition, we could both be wrong.

We all need to use our intuition to guide us, but we need to test that intuition if we want to avoid being crazy people spouting the nonsense in our heads as fact.

imagine a future with double the number of physicists working on physics and one with half the number of physicists working on physics. Which one is more likely to produce better results regarding understanding of physics?

Which future gets Michael Faraday? That one.
(He was a boss. No formal training... Did amazing science. Total badass physicist.)

Statistically, the one with more manpower-hours will have the greater chance of progressing physics, but it's not certain. But by invoking this statistical analysis, you undermine your own point by acknowledging that there is a non-0 chance of everything, which includes more people on the problem does not necessarily yield more robust outcomes.

[wufwugy]

If you agree that a single person doesn't necessarily make better choices when they spend more time on analyzing that choice, then I think you'll agree that it is also not certain that any group of people will necessarily make better choices when they spend more time.

When the average is 7, sometimes one of the quantities in the average is 1.

An aggregate of frat boys thinks this discussion is totally gay. They have had plenty of time to draw their conclusions. In a raging fit of bookkeeping they actually documented their opinion of us and posted it on a bulletin board. However, it was an unflattering stick figure with his head unceremoniously deposited into his own posterior, so I wont share it here.

Forgive me if my use of aggregate was confusing. Economists use it to mean every relevant measure. I've adopted that, probably inappropriately. To rephrase, frat boys are a narrow subset of the total relevant sets.

"It shows an increasing trend, but maybe not gonna keep increasing, so I dunno." -wuf
Then what's the point of this diagram?

From the beginning of homo sapiens to now (and for reason, the foreseeable future), it is increasing.

Now in human endeavors: war, genocide, exploitation of children, sex trafficking, etc.

I'd say the results are not stellar. More to the point, it's not like anything on that list is less than centuries old.

I mean, sure, technology and medicine are good examples of rather continuous progress RECENTLY, but they took a real hit in the middle ages. The Romans were the height of technology, art and nation-building until they hit a run of poor administrators. This "constant progress" you talk about is quite possibly an illusion of our place between dark ages. Given a few really bad administrators, progress is dust.

Local maxima. It has still been the case that humankind benefits more when greater efforts are thrown at problems.

Whether or not something is intuitive is nothing to do with nothing.
Even if I share your intuition, we could both be wrong.

Indeed, intuition shows not the veracity of a thing. However, it can help illustrate ideas.

Perhaps you can help me here. How else should I make the point that, historically and logically, the more physicists working on physics, the better in general the results of physics understanding? I can't think of any way to describe that other than to appeal to intuition.

Statistically, the one with more manpower-hours will have the greater chance of progressing physics, but it's not certain. But by invoking this statistical analysis, you undermine your own point by acknowledging that there is a non-0 chance of everything, which includes more people on the problem does not necessarily yield more robust outcomes.

Given that every event has a probability, I'm a little confused on the point.

[CoccoBill]

Private entities are by nature closer to the problems, have the most skin in the game, and have the most relevant details.

The University of Missouri study is an example showing on the micro scale that when people are more affected by something, they put more attention into that thing. The idea that this doesn't change as the scale increases is one element for why I argue against bureaucratic regulation. Private entities are better equipped to handle problems that affect them in the same way that the UM students who were affected by the new problem were better equipped to handle it (by way of not using the heuristic of somebody unaffected, according to the author).

Alright, so who are these private entities? I think we established that consumers and citizens aren't included. Corporations? So corporations should be unregulated because of the conclusions of this study? Are you sure this isn't a textbook example of confirmation bias?

[wufwugy]

Consumers are included.

Private entities are all entities non-government.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Not sure if this changes my opinions, or shows me a Truth about myself that I was following, but barely aware of.

[CoccoBill]

^For some reasons, which I can't cohesively explain or defend, I have a lot of respect for Penn's opinions. Probably some confirmation bias involved, since I tend to agree with him on many subjects. He makes a compelling case here. I can agree with everything he said. However, I can see that as a case for limiting the reach and power of government, which I'm in favor for anyway (albeit that's probably not obvious if you're just basing your judgment on my correspondence with wuf), not for the abolishment of government.

A society needs protection, right? Members of a society come together to form a coalition, strength in numbers etc. Each member of the society chips in to finance the coalition to provide safety and security. Is there a difference whether we call that coalition a government or Safety Inc?

[wufwugy]

Not sure if this changes my opinions, or shows me a Truth about myself that I was following, but barely aware of.

Thanks for this. I can think of fewer more clearheaded arguments than his.

[wufwugy]

However, I can see that as a case for limiting the reach and power of government, which I'm in favor for anyway (albeit that's probably not obvious if you're just basing your judgment on my correspondence with wuf), not for the abolishment of government.

Yeah his argument is definitely not about abolishing government. His stance is probably closer to Milton Friedman's than mine is.

I really do love his argument. Quality stuff I hadn't thought of. It's probably the best limited government argument I've heard. Though I agree with the reasons for why government should be limited, I believe the points I use imply even more, so that's where I take them. Jillette's argument is A+ for limited government, and also it is an argument against no government. I'm definitely happy with his argument as I think it's a step in the right direction. Even if I'm wrong about my no government stance, his path is still a step in the right direction.

[wufwugy]

Food for thought:

So, we've discussed regulation of food industry for the purpose of keeping deadly toxins out of consumables. Let's apply Penn's model of reasoning to that. Would Penn use a gun to stop somebody from putting cyanide in burritos then selling them to unsuspecting customers? I think he would answer "no." Every time he said he would use a gun to stop something, it was when the only option to stop a violent action is to overcome it with direct violence. In the case of somebody selling cyanide burritos, there are more ways to stop that than to shoot to kill.

[MadMojoMonkey]

He said he'd use a gun to stop a robbery. There's nothing inherently "violent" about robbery.

I'd argue that a robbery is further from violence than murder by cyanide.

I would "use a gun" to stop someone from intentionally poisoning people. (Accepting the caviats that Penn had about being fundamentally non-violent and a non-gun-owner)

[Savy]

He said he'd use a gun to stop a robbery. There's nothing inherently "violent" about robbery.

I'd argue that a robbery is further from violence than murder by cyanide.

I would "use a gun" to stop someone from intentionally poisoning people. (Accepting the caviats that Penn had about being fundamentally non-violent and a non-gun-owner)

It's about a business selling a product to make profit not someone attempting to murder people by poisoning them with cyanide. The scenario is vastly different.

[wufwugy]

It's about a business selling a product to make profit not someone attempting to murder people by poisoning them with cyanide. The scenario is vastly different.

Well, the hypothetical I used was about somebody intentionally doing it (I see now that my wording was ambiguous), and MMM responded to that specifically. But yes in reality the distinction wouldn't be so easy to find, and so you are right that probably a better use of the Penn model would be "am I willing to use a gun to stop somebody from putting cyanide in food if I'm not sure if he's doing so intentionally?"

[wufwugy]

He said he'd use a gun to stop a robbery. There's nothing inherently "violent" about robbery.

I'd argue that a robbery is further from violence than murder by cyanide.

Okay perhaps I should find a different description than "violence" to describe what Penn would counter with a gun. Penn's model is still about using force to overcome something that is reasonably only overcome by force. If you see somebody committing a robbery, what option to stop him is there other than using violence against him.

Maybe one way of making the distinction I'm trying to get at is that I think there is an important difference between somebody pushing people off of bridges and somebody persuading people by using psychological tactics to jump off a bridge themselves. Both are wrong, but I see reason to think that in Penn's model, we should maybe only use a gun to stop the former and not the latter.

Granted, I actually disagree with that, as I'm personally okay with using bullets to stop somebody using mind tricks to get people to commit suicide. My read of Penn however is that maybe he would not. I tend to favor the use of force more than other free marketeers. What I don't favor is a monopoly on force. Regardless, that's irrelevant to Penn's model.

[JKDS]

A robbery is inherently violent. It's defined as theft + force or threat of force.

Gimme your wallet = theft
Gimme your wallet or I'll beat the shit out of you = robbery