Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Renton]

Let's say we live in Renton's utopia. I come up with tobacco and in a couple years I got a few million people hooked. We're still a couple decades from learning about the long term health consequences. What's your move?

I don't see any issues with this example yet. Does it have a part 2?

Is it your point that people shouldn't be allowed to engage in risky behavior, even where the risks are entirely unknown?

People have been putting cell phones next to their heads for a period of time not-long-enough to definitively study the cancer risks of microwave radiation. Should all cell phones be banned?

[CoccoBill]

I don't see any issues with this example yet. Does it have a part 2?

Is it your point that people shouldn't be allowed to engage in risky behavior, even where the risks are entirely unknown?

People have been putting cell phones next to their heads for a period of time not-long-enough to definitively study the cancer risks of microwave radiation. Should all cell phones be banned?

So to put it another way, you see no issue with me marketing tobacco as a harmless habit that makes you look cool?

I'm in no way endorsing regulations for the consumers, I'm endorsing regulations for the producers. I've got a feeling in your utopia there would be no way to know cigarettes are harmful, and (without the judicial branch, I assume?) no way to sue them even if you did find out.

[wufwugy]

So to put it another way, you see no issue with me marketing tobacco as a harmless habit that makes you look cool?

I have a huge problem with it. Almost everybody has a huge problem with it.

But what I have an even bigger problem with is getting government involved in it because government has an incredible track record of making these things far worse. It doesn't solve the actual problem as well as it creates the unintended consequences like what Renton laid out earlier.

There are plenty of ways people acting freely solve these sorts of problems. Governments, well, kinda never solve them. The data and theory both bear this out. The data against government solving problems is overwhelming. The theory is solid. Everybody agrees with the theory too. It's just that once people start thinking in terms of macro, they start providing one exception for that theory: government. We think it's absolutely ridiculous for government to tell us who we're allowed to be friends with, but we love government telling us who are allowed to be our doctors. The theory for why it is wrong for government to choose peoples' friends is exactly the same when applied to choosing doctors, but society at large has rejected this reality.

[CoccoBill]

There are plenty of ways people acting freely solve these sorts of problems.

Such as?

[wufwugy]

Such as?

By competing against them. The more avenues people are allowed to freely compete, the greater variety and ultimately greater the solution will be. Against tobacco marketing specifically, all sorts of entities from wealthy individuals/groups or non-profit organizations functioning on smaller donations from like-minded folk can conduct research and campaigns against tobacco. Isn't this what happened to Dr. Oz?

On the business side, when people are free to create whatever products and services for whatever cost they can muster, we find that alternative and superior products and services develop. Maybe vaping is an example, but really you can even go so far as to say that wheat grass juice and the neo-hippie businesses are examples. I'm not well-versed on tobacco specifically, but I suspect if we were to delve into the regulations governments impose (most or all of which are well-meaning), we would find ample reason to believe that competition against Big Tobacco is stymied. An example I understand better is ISPs, which I've posted on several times here already. The short is that Comcast and Time Warner have such high market share with worse service than might be desired because of government policies. Examples are zoning and unions.

[CoccoBill]

By competing against them. The more avenues people are allowed to freely compete, the greater variety and ultimately greater the solution will be. Against tobacco marketing specifically, all sorts of entities from wealthy individuals/groups or non-profit organizations functioning on smaller donations from like-minded folk can conduct research and campaigns against tobacco. Isn't this what happened to Dr. Oz?

On the business side, when people are free to create whatever products and services for whatever cost they can muster, we find that alternative and superior products and services develop. Maybe vaping is an example, but really you can even go so far as to say that wheat grass juice and the neo-hippie businesses are examples. I'm not well-versed on tobacco specifically, but I suspect if we were to delve into the regulations governments impose (most or all of which are well-meaning), we would find ample reason to believe that competition against Big Tobacco is stymied. An example I understand better is ISPs, which I've posted on several times here already. The short is that Comcast and Time Warner have such high market share with worse service than might be desired because of government policies. Examples are zoning and unions.

So now we have competing tobacco companies sharing the profits, with even more assets to enforce our market presence. We might as well start price-fixing to ensure continuing profits, and pretty soon we can afford our own army. Your move?

The study on Dr Oz's claims was conducted by U of Alberta (a public uni) and it resulted in a senate hearing and FTC complaints. I wouldn't chalk that up as a win for free enterprise. In fact, I would argue that Oz more presents a clear case for regulation and oversight.

Vaping, I think, is a great example for what you're saying about healthier products brought about by competition (and yes, the tobacco/pharma lobbies and government regulations are doing their darnest to kill it). My argument is that it took 60 years, and I see no reason to believe it would have taken less in a regulation-free environment, I would argue it would take longer, perhaps indefinitely. How many people died unnecessarily within that time, as opposed to efficient regulation from day 1? And no, I don't know what that efficient regulation would be, but I'm not a policy nor a subject matter expert, I'd leave it to those. I also can see regulation being able to push innovation. If there's a clear market for a product but it doesn't pass health regulations, one obvious alternative is to develop a healthier product.

[wufwugy]

So now we have competing tobacco companies sharing the profits, with even more assets to enforce our market presence. We might as well start price-fixing to ensure continuing profits, and pretty soon we can afford our own army. Your move?

Bankruptcy came years before this.

The study on Dr Oz's claims was conducted by U of Alberta (a public uni) and it resulted in a senate hearing and FTC complaints. I wouldn't chalk that up as a win for free enterprise. In fact, I would argue that Oz more presents a clear case for regulation and oversight.

One small aspect of something that was touched by government. We have so much government these days that you can't walk into a room without government crouching in the crannies. Just be sure to not look at that one tree and call it the forest. The campaign against Oz was vastly private. If government had been a significant enough party on this, all other parties would have either been supported or prohibited by mandates. We would have seen no change and no progress.

Vaping, I think, is a great example for what you're saying about healthier products brought about by competition (and yes, the tobacco/pharma lobbies and government regulations are doing their darnest to kill it).

The only possible way they could is government backing.

My argument is that it took 60 years, and I see no reason to believe it would have taken less in a regulation-free environment, I would argue it would take longer, perhaps indefinitely.

So we have the ultra heavily regulated environment tobacco has operated in, and you say less regulation would make it worse?

How many people died unnecessarily within that time, as opposed to efficient regulation from day 1?

We don't have anywhere close to an idea of what efficient regulation is from day 1. The drug war is an amazing example for what happens when we believe we have "efficient regulation from day 1".

And no, I don't know what that efficient regulation would be, but I'm not a policy nor a subject matter expert, I'd leave it to those.

The vast majority of these subject matter experts oppose government intervention into these sorts of things. The government typically doesn't hire experts to regulate for this reason. Voters love regulation. Experts are in the minority, denouncing them.

I also can see regulation being able to push innovation. If there's a clear market for a product but it doesn't pass health regulations, one obvious alternative is to develop a healthier product.

The effect is the opposite because innovation is marginal. These sorts of regulations have been integral in reducing market activity. The regulators are trying to do "the right thing" by regulating for better things, but they're not engaging in economically sound methods to get those better things. Which is why regulations to improve systems by reducing choice always make them worse.

[Renton]

So to put it another way, you see no issue with me marketing tobacco as a harmless habit that makes you look cool?

I'm in no way endorsing regulations for the consumers, I'm endorsing regulations for the producers. I've got a feeling in your utopia there would be no way to know cigarettes are harmful, and (without the judicial branch, I assume?) no way to sue them even if you did find out.

Please stop saying utopia. I just want the government to do fewer things, I'm not asking for the world here.

Obviously in a free society it would become apparent that cigarettes cause health harm. Do you think all scientific and medical research is done by states? Obviously even in a pure anarcho-capitalist experiment there would still be laws, law enforcement, suing, contracts, etc. There is great economic value in all of these things. There will also always be non-profit organizations that advocate for causes. In fact, with people making twice as much money (from not having to pay taxes), I suspect a lot more money would flow to such causes than now.

As long as no fraud is being committed, I have no issue with any marketing strategies for tobacco.

[a500lbgorilla]

Obviously in a free society it would become apparent that cigarettes cause health harm.

Absolutely beyond 110% not the case. The average joe is no better than chance at telling between an expert and an expert fake. If you can flood the conversation with more expert fakes than there are experts, you can robustly direct the conversation away from the truth. Profitable cig companies would have an interest in controlling the conversation, truth-jockeys without a profit motive would have no chance to compete.

edit: Maybe wealthy sensible people and nonprofits could become a loud voice in the conversation, but without a central violent authority to straight up silence the wrong the side, they'll always have an appreciable level of rhetorical pull.

[a500lbgorilla]

It seems to me that fraud is pretty close to unavoidable. It's an arm of both telling lies and desiring more, which sound like normal aspects of people.

[wufwugy]

Absolutely beyond 110% not the case. The average joe is no better than chance at telling between an expert and an expert fake. If you can flood the conversation with more expert fakes than there are experts, you can robustly direct the conversation away from the truth. Profitable cig companies would have an interest in controlling the conversation, truth-jockeys without a profit motive would have no chance to compete.

There would be tons of profit in competing against them. It's like how we have a vast health food industry for reasons unrelated to government involvement. Plus non-profit would have a lot of legroom to work as well. Most information that travels through communities are not based on profit.

The last thing "Big Whatever" wants is the government to let the market handle it.

[CoccoBill]

As long as no fraud is being committed, I have no issue with any marketing strategies for tobacco.

Who defines "fraud"?

[Renton]

Who defines "fraud"?

People do. Definitions come from human culture, not from Webster, and certainly not from states. Conventional court systems define law in fairly undemocratic ways, as high court judges are often appointed, not elected. Free market courts (since we're apparently still on the anarcho-capitalist experiment) would not be able to arbitrarily define law, because people would be free to choose courts that have a best reputation for fairness. For me, while fraud contains a gray area, I would only be in favor of a law against the most blatant fraud, since it is the least subject to interpretation. Soft misrepresentation shouldn't be a crime. Having a supermodel smoking a cigarette in your commercial shouldn't be a crime. Deliberately stating to your customer your tobacco product definitely has no health risk should be a crime.

Again though, I'm just here to criticize what governments are currently doing. If they started to do merely less, I would consider that an accomplishment. I suspect the role for government, if it has a role, will be solidified through conversations like these over the next millennium.