These people are our future

[CoccoBill]

"What I'm really getting at is that if commercial interest are inherently good (the market will bend to the collective morals of the consumer... this pretty much sums up your stance, correct?) then why have government at all?"

Well this is basically my stance but there is certainly some uses for government. For example, protecting your rights and protecting you from harm from others.

Why can't that be privatized, in your opinion?

If you remove the "commercial interests are inherently good" part, then yes.

Do you disagree that this is true? What evidence is there that this is not true?

Are commercial interests to e.g. protect the environment, ensure safety of products, maximize welfare and human progression, combat injustice or to maximize profits? I think the burden of proof is on you to show that commercial interests do in practice equate those goals. The fact that they "can" is not proof in the least.

[Lyric]

Why can't that be privatized, in your opinion?




Are commercial interests to e.g. protect the environment, ensure safety of products, maximize welfare and human progression, combat injustice or to maximize profits? I think the burden of proof is on you to show that commercial interests do in practice equate those goals. The fact that they "can" is not proof in the least.

The burden lies on both sides. A lot of evidence has been provided in this thread regarding free exchange, none has been offered regarding directed investment benefiting society.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Are commercial interests to e.g. protect the environment, ensure safety of products, maximize welfare and human progression, combat injustice or to maximize profits? I think the burden of proof is on you to show that commercial interests do in practice equate those goals. The fact that they "can" is not proof in the least.

Is there a difference between what we say and what we do?

Do you think if we acted on our interests to protect the environment, ensure safety of product, maximize welfare and human progression and combat justice then would, in turn, a company who did this maximize profit? More specifically, if people wanted safety and reliability in their car, do you think the company who made the safest and most reliable cars would maximize their profits? If not, please explain.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Is there a difference between what we say and what we do?

Do you think if we acted on our interests to protect the environment, ensure safety of product, maximize welfare and human progression and combat justice then would, in turn, a company who did this maximize profit? More specifically, if people wanted safety and reliability in their car, do you think the company who made the safest and most reliable cars would maximize their profits? If not, please explain.

I'd add to this: Do you think a company that did not make safe and reliable cars would succeed?

[CoccoBill]

Is there a difference between what we say and what we do?

Do you think if we acted on our interests to protect the environment, ensure safety of product, maximize welfare and human progression and combat justice then would, in turn, a company who did this maximize profit? More specifically, if people wanted safety and reliability in their car, do you think the company who made the safest and most reliable cars would maximize their profits? If not, please explain.

Ok one more time. The fact that a company _can_ operate using those values or those goals, does _not_ mean that all companies will. In fact, many will not, since they are counterproductive for their raison d'être, creating shareholder value. Protecting the environment, for example, can be a way to polish a company's public image, use for taxation benefits or to clean up the beach of their CEO's summer cottage, but to posit that all companies would automatically do this without regulation is incredibly naive. Even with regulation companies left and right are getting caught with using child labor, dumping waste wherever they want, fixing prices and all sorts of abusive practices against their employees, competition and customers. Regulation is needed to ensure that _all_ companies, not just those that happen to feel like it, make safe products and adhere to environmental and safety standards.

This is the whole disconnect here, the foundations of free market are that every component in it (individuals) are all rational and benevolent, which simply isn't true. Assuming they do just leaves the whole system open for the most ruthless players to work the system for an unfair advantage.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com
Are irrational economic choices baked into the human psyche? - SmartPlanet
Irrational Economic Man by Michael Shermer, City Journal 11 January 2009

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Ok one more time. The fact that a company _can_ operate using those values or those goals, does _not_ mean that all companies will.

You are right. They are going to operate under the values and goals of the people who use their product because they want people to support (aka buy) their products. Or do you think that people will buy products or use services against their will? Maybe this is the part of the argument I don't understand...

[CoccoBill]

You are right. They are going to operate under the values and goals of the people who use their product because they want people to support (aka buy) their products. Or do you think that people will buy products or use services against their will? Maybe this is the part of the argument I don't understand...

I'm sure many people will only buy an unsafe car once.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

This is the whole disconnect here, the foundations of free market are that every component in it (individuals) are all rational and benevolent, which simply isn't true. Assuming they do just leaves the whole system open for the most ruthless players to work the system for an unfair advantage.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com
Are irrational economic choices baked into the human psyche? - SmartPlanet
Irrational Economic Man by Michael Shermer, City Journal 11 January 2009

What is rational? Should I tell a person who lives in a forest because he thinks the trees talk to him that he can't live there because it isn't rational? What is unfair? If a stupid person kicks a wall as hard as he can because he didn't know it would hurt, and then breaks his toe because of it unfair?

You call these rich business men and companies like wal-mart selfishbut your ideals are the most selfish of them all, you think that your beliefs and opinions are the absolute truth and that everyone should follow them, and if they don't, they are wrong.

[CoccoBill]

What is rational? Should I tell a person who lives in a forest because he thinks the trees talk to him that he can't live there because it isn't rational? What is unfair? If a stupid person kicks a wall as hard as he can because he didn't know it would hurt, and then breaks his toe because of it unfair?

Rational means making making the best decision or reaching the correct conclusion based on available knowledge. Humans don't act that way, there are several ways we have been shown to operate or be inclined to operate irrationally, go read the links I posted. Having an economical system that's based on human rationality is perhaps not the optimal solution.

You call these rich business men and companies like wal-mart selfishbut your ideals are the most selfish of them all, you think that your beliefs and opinions are the absolute truth and that everyone should follow them, and if they don't, they are wrong.

I think the irony of your statement escapes you.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I think the irony of your statement escapes you.

There's a reason why they call what I'm arguing for Laissez Faire.

[Lyric]

Even with regulation companies left and right are getting caught with using child labor, dumping waste wherever they want, fixing prices and all sorts of abusive practices against their employees, competition and customers. Regulation is needed to ensure that _all_ companies, not just those that happen to feel like it, make safe products and adhere to environmental and safety standards.

This is the whole disconnect here, the foundations of free market are that every component in it (individuals) are all rational and benevolent, which simply isn't true. Assuming they do just leaves the whole system open for the most ruthless players to work the system for an unfair advantage.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com
Are irrational economic choices baked into the human psyche? - SmartPlanet
Irrational Economic Man by Michael Shermer, City Journal 11 January 2009

Companies are not allowed to pollute or enslave (child labor) in my world. A free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct choices. If I enjoy McDonald's and it is killing me slowly and shortening my life, I would argue that it's better to let me make that poor decision instead of allowing angels in government to force me to avoid french fries because it isn't logical to eat them and it is killing me.

Please see my other post regarding the FDA. We don't need government testing everything and selecting "safe" products to allow us to purchase, and private companies like USP labs and consumer reports do the same thing for less money. Free market systems don't assume people are rational and ot certainly doesn't assume we are all benevolent. Hurting each other is prohibited, and leaders are given as little power as possible to allow each person to try to make themselves happy instead of being told what to do.

Do you think people are happier when government makes decisions for them? Do you really think we can find angels to make laws that are benevolent and avoid the temptation of bribes from large companies? Is it really ok to stop a terminal cancer patient from trying a new drug even if he knows he will die 100% without it? Is it okay to stop him from taking it, allow a million to die during the ten year approval process in a similar way, and finally discover that the drug works? Doesn't that mean the FDA just killed a million people by preventing the drug from being tried by terminally ill patients?

We should be free to make our own decisions, however irrational they may be, because if i can't make decisions that make me happy you certainly can't be expected to make decisions that work out any better. Doing this is like assuming that leaders would be Gods, and forcing me to avoid irrationality will make me happier.

[CoccoBill]

Companies are not allowed to pollute or enslave (child labor) in my world. A free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct choices. I I enjoy McDonald's and it is killing me slowly and shortening my life, I would argue that it's better to let me make that poor decision instead of allowing angels in government to force me to avoid french fries because it isn't logical to eat them and it is killing me.

You do realize that french fries are bad for you and that a lot of people eat them? So either what you posted in bold is incorrect, or you're supporting social darwinism. It's also another strawman, since I specifically said that in my opinion the role of the government is NOT to protect its citizen from themselves. But whatever, I'm done.

[IowaSkinsFan]

You do realize that french fries are bad for you and that a lot of people eat them? So either what you posted in bold is incorrect, or you're supporting social darwinism. It's also another strawman, since I specifically said that in my opinion the role of the government is NOT to protect its citizen from themselves. But whatever, I'm done.

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 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? How does this disprove the statement that a free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct statements?

[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

[Lyric]

You do realize that french fries are bad for you and that a lot of people eat them? So either what you posted in bold is incorrect, or you're supporting social darwinism. It's also another strawman, since I specifically said that in my opinion the role of the government is NOT to protect its citizen from themselves. But whatever, I'm done.

You said that free markets don't work because people don't make logical decisions. My bolded point was that illogical decisions make people happy and regulations on bad decisions is a retarded idea in all cases. We only need laws banning hurting other people.