|
On September 24 2011 00:16 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 22:55 Talin wrote:On September 23 2011 21:46 Shraft wrote:
I don't want some "experts" to decide what's healthy or what's legal or illegal. A government limited to only police and courts would be superior to a technocracy in every single way. Any form of society that relies on heavy centralization is bound to be worse than a free market one. See that's exactly the problem - you oppose an idea because you don't like it. This is exactly why what people want or don't want or like and dislike shouldn't matter, and objective efficiency should. How is it "bound to be worse" anyway? One of the greatest advantages humans have, being on the evolutionary stage that we are, is the ability to form strong and structured communities and benefit from proper hierarchy and organization. Allowing everybody to do what they want, say what they want, and behave how they want, chasing only their own personal interests is a recipe for disaster - which is exactly what the last few hundreds of years of human history have been - a disaster. So much of our joint potential and energy has been wasted on superficial things and coping with outdated social structures. Society fostering and encouraging internal conflict and competition on every level is fundamentally absurd and anti-progressive. What you're advocating essentially turns humans into animals with technology. In fact, some insect species would have more advanced organizational structures than we do. It's bound to be worse because a free market leads to the best/most efficient economy. I am not the greatest economist myself, but there's plenty of books/videos on the subject. ( Economics in one lesson, for example) And you're entirely wrong on the "competition is bad" stuff. Competition on a free market means that the companies have to produce commodities that people want, or they'll go bankrupt. And who are they to decide what's objectively wrong? Perhaps they'll decide that steroids are bad for your health, so they'll prohibit the production and consumption of them. But if I think that the benefits of using steroids outweigh the health hazard, then why can't I use them? As long as I don't hurt anyone else, it should all be fine and dandy. Basically, it's stupid to have a bunch of guys decide what's in the best interests of everyone.
No free market does not in general lead to the most efficient economy. Only if you define efficiency to fit what you are trying to prove does it hold true. Competition is redundancy, that might be good or bad depending on circumstances. Competition is definitely not good in all cases.
As long as you do not hurt anyone else is extremely continuous concept. What if your use of steroids hurts your loved ones ? Is it hurting anyone or not ? In societies the concept of hurting someone else is much more broad than most people acknowledge and varies from one society to another. For example in society with public healthcare your overuse of steroids hurts other people, in some other it might not.
But no matter where we draw the line objectively wrong can be only something that hurts other people, so your objection is invalid. Things that you do that do not hurt other people cannot be objectively wrong for the purpose of policy decisions.
|
On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
No free market does not in general lead to the most efficient economy. Only if you define efficiency to fit what you are trying to prove does it hold true. Competition is redundancy, that might be good or bad depending on circumstances. Competition is definitely not good in all cases.
Definitely not good in all cases? For whom? Market competition is always good if you're looking at a population as a whole, but it might be bad for an individual or a group of people.
On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
As long as you do not hurt anyone else is extremely continuous concept. What if your use of steroids hurts your loved ones ? Is it hurting anyone or not ? In societies the concept of hurting someone else is much more broad than most people acknowledge and varies from one society to another. For example in society with public healthcare your overuse of steroids hurts other people, in some other it might not.
As long as something doesn't directly hurt someone, it shouldn't be classified as a crime. For example, say that intake of alcohol increases the risk of you battering someone by 10%. This does not warrant a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, because the actual crime is battering, not drinking. By the same principle, driving cars should not be prohibited, but running people over with them should. There are tons of examples, but I think you get the point.
On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
But no matter where we draw the line objectively wrong can be only something that hurts other people, so your objection is invalid. Things that you do that do not hurt other people cannot be objectively wrong for the purpose of policy decisions.
So, do you think that acts/things that may indirectly hurt others should be prohibited or not?
|
On September 24 2011 01:41 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
No free market does not in general lead to the most efficient economy. Only if you define efficiency to fit what you are trying to prove does it hold true. Competition is redundancy, that might be good or bad depending on circumstances. Competition is definitely not good in all cases. Definitely not good in all cases? For whom? Market competition is always good if you're looking at a population as a whole, but it might be bad for an individual or a group of people. Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
As long as you do not hurt anyone else is extremely continuous concept. What if your use of steroids hurts your loved ones ? Is it hurting anyone or not ? In societies the concept of hurting someone else is much more broad than most people acknowledge and varies from one society to another. For example in society with public healthcare your overuse of steroids hurts other people, in some other it might not. As long as something doesn't directly hurt someone, it shouldn't be classified as a crime. For example, say that intake of alcohol increases the risk of you battering someone by 10%. This does not warrant a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, because the actual crime is battering, not drinking. By the same principle, driving cars should not be prohibited, but running people over with them should. There are tons of examples, but I think you get the point. Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
But no matter where we draw the line objectively wrong can be only something that hurts other people, so your objection is invalid. Things that you do that do not hurt other people cannot be objectively wrong for the purpose of policy decisions. So, do you think that acts/things that may indirectly hurt others should be prohibited or not?
Perfect competition in the absence of externalities, leads to an efficient distribution of resources.
Its important to remember that very, very few industries could be characterised as perfectly competitive and basically no industry is free of externalities.
|
On September 24 2011 01:49 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:41 Shraft wrote:On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
No free market does not in general lead to the most efficient economy. Only if you define efficiency to fit what you are trying to prove does it hold true. Competition is redundancy, that might be good or bad depending on circumstances. Competition is definitely not good in all cases. Definitely not good in all cases? For whom? Market competition is always good if you're looking at a population as a whole, but it might be bad for an individual or a group of people. On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
As long as you do not hurt anyone else is extremely continuous concept. What if your use of steroids hurts your loved ones ? Is it hurting anyone or not ? In societies the concept of hurting someone else is much more broad than most people acknowledge and varies from one society to another. For example in society with public healthcare your overuse of steroids hurts other people, in some other it might not. As long as something doesn't directly hurt someone, it shouldn't be classified as a crime. For example, say that intake of alcohol increases the risk of you battering someone by 10%. This does not warrant a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, because the actual crime is battering, not drinking. By the same principle, driving cars should not be prohibited, but running people over with them should. There are tons of examples, but I think you get the point. On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
But no matter where we draw the line objectively wrong can be only something that hurts other people, so your objection is invalid. Things that you do that do not hurt other people cannot be objectively wrong for the purpose of policy decisions. So, do you think that acts/things that may indirectly hurt others should be prohibited or not? Perfect competition in the absence of externalities, leads to an efficient distribution of resources. Its important to remember that very, very few industries could be characterised as perfectly competitive and basically no industry is free of externalities.
It is true that very few industries can be characterised as perfectly competitive today, and I think that's a shame. Apart from that, I don't really see what you're trying to say with your post. Care to elaborate?
|
On September 24 2011 01:41 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
No free market does not in general lead to the most efficient economy. Only if you define efficiency to fit what you are trying to prove does it hold true. Competition is redundancy, that might be good or bad depending on circumstances. Competition is definitely not good in all cases. Definitely not good in all cases? For whom? Market competition is always good if you're looking at a population as a whole, but it might be bad for an individual or a group of people.
No it might be also bad for a whole society. There are situations where redundancy introduced by the competition is too big compared to gains. It seems to me that it is you who is talking about a subset of the population, specifically the consumers of the product in question, whereas I talk about society as a whole and that is the difference.
But even if I considered it from the point of view of the consumers, competition might lead to situations (unlikely ones but possible) where the product is more expensive then it would be in monopoly. Economies of scale and all that.
On September 24 2011 01:41 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
As long as you do not hurt anyone else is extremely continuous concept. What if your use of steroids hurts your loved ones ? Is it hurting anyone or not ? In societies the concept of hurting someone else is much more broad than most people acknowledge and varies from one society to another. For example in society with public healthcare your overuse of steroids hurts other people, in some other it might not. As long as something doesn't directly hurt someone, it shouldn't be classified as a crime. For example, say that intake of alcohol increases the risk of you battering someone by 10%. This does not warrant a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, because the actual crime is battering, not drinking. By the same principle, driving cars should not be prohibited, but running people over with them should. There are tons of examples, but I think you get the point. Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
But no matter where we draw the line objectively wrong can be only something that hurts other people, so your objection is invalid. Things that you do that do not hurt other people cannot be objectively wrong for the purpose of policy decisions. So, do you think that acts/things that may indirectly hurt others should be prohibited or not?
There is no clear distinction between directly and indirectly hurting someone. It is continuum not discrete.
As for your examples, what if someone puts one round into a revolver and then randomly spins it, points at you and "shoots". Should this act be allowed ? There is only (for example) 1/6 chance he will kill you. Similarly with DUI. The point is there is no such thing as clear distinction between direct and indirect hurt. Of course in practice we pick some point, but the reasoning for picking that point is not following from your simplistic criteria. You need more complex reasoning.
|
On September 24 2011 02:17 mcc wrote:
No it might be also bad for a whole society. There are situations where redundancy introduced by the competition is too big compared to gains. It seems to me that it is you who is talking about a subset of the population, specifically the consumers of the product in question, whereas I talk about society as a whole and that is the difference.
But even if I considered it from the point of view of the consumers, competition might lead to situations (unlikely ones but possible) where the product is more expensive then it would be in monopoly. Economies of scale and all that.
You keep talking about this "redundancy of competition" without declaring what it means or why it is bad. Please be more specific or explain some scenarios where this is likely to cause a problem.
The probability for a commodity being more expensive on a free market than in a government endorsed monopoly is so incredibly low that arguing it is futile. By pointing out how unlikely it is you are basically agreeing with me in that products will be cheaper and better on a free market.
On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
There is no clear distinction between directly and indirectly hurting someone. It is continuum not discrete.
As for your examples, what if someone puts one round into a revolver and then randomly spins it, points at you and "shoots". Should this act be allowed ? There is only (for example) 1/6 chance he will kill you. Similarly with DUI. The point is there is no such thing as clear distinction between direct and indirect hurt. Of course in practice we pick some point, but the reasoning for picking that point is not following from your simplistic criteria. You need more complex reasoning.
Shooting someone should be punishable, yes. DUI should not be punishable by state law. It is up to the private owners of roads to decide whether or not they want it to be allowed on their roads or not. (I am not for government financed roads.)
|
On September 24 2011 01:55 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:49 vetinari wrote:On September 24 2011 01:41 Shraft wrote:On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
No free market does not in general lead to the most efficient economy. Only if you define efficiency to fit what you are trying to prove does it hold true. Competition is redundancy, that might be good or bad depending on circumstances. Competition is definitely not good in all cases. Definitely not good in all cases? For whom? Market competition is always good if you're looking at a population as a whole, but it might be bad for an individual or a group of people. On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
As long as you do not hurt anyone else is extremely continuous concept. What if your use of steroids hurts your loved ones ? Is it hurting anyone or not ? In societies the concept of hurting someone else is much more broad than most people acknowledge and varies from one society to another. For example in society with public healthcare your overuse of steroids hurts other people, in some other it might not. As long as something doesn't directly hurt someone, it shouldn't be classified as a crime. For example, say that intake of alcohol increases the risk of you battering someone by 10%. This does not warrant a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, because the actual crime is battering, not drinking. By the same principle, driving cars should not be prohibited, but running people over with them should. There are tons of examples, but I think you get the point. On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
But no matter where we draw the line objectively wrong can be only something that hurts other people, so your objection is invalid. Things that you do that do not hurt other people cannot be objectively wrong for the purpose of policy decisions. So, do you think that acts/things that may indirectly hurt others should be prohibited or not? Perfect competition in the absence of externalities, leads to an efficient distribution of resources. Its important to remember that very, very few industries could be characterised as perfectly competitive and basically no industry is free of externalities. It is true that very few industries can be characterised as perfectly competitive today, and I think that's a shame. Apart from that, I don't really see what you're trying to say with your post. Care to elaborate?
I'm actually interested in which industries are even close to perfectly competitive. It seems like if any company gains an edge over the competitors, it will leverage its edge to push its competitors out of business.
|
On September 24 2011 02:47 buhhy wrote:
I'm actually interested in which industries are even close to perfectly competitive. It seems like if any company gains an edge over the competitors, it will leverage its edge to push its competitors out of business.
Which is perfectly fine. Good companies will put bad companies out of business.
Edit: What I mean when I say that an industry is perfectly competitive is that the government doesn't meddle with the companies in said industry. In order words when government and economy is separated i.e. in a free market society.
|
On September 24 2011 03:04 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 02:47 buhhy wrote:
I'm actually interested in which industries are even close to perfectly competitive. It seems like if any company gains an edge over the competitors, it will leverage its edge to push its competitors out of business. Which is perfectly fine. Good companies will put bad companies out of business. Edit: What I mean when I say that an industry is perfectly competitive is that the government doesn't meddle with the companies in said industry. In order words when government and economy is separated i.e. in a free market society.
And eventually a monopoly will be established?
|
On September 24 2011 03:14 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:04 Shraft wrote:On September 24 2011 02:47 buhhy wrote:
I'm actually interested in which industries are even close to perfectly competitive. It seems like if any company gains an edge over the competitors, it will leverage its edge to push its competitors out of business. Which is perfectly fine. Good companies will put bad companies out of business. Edit: What I mean when I say that an industry is perfectly competitive is that the government doesn't meddle with the companies in said industry. In order words when government and economy is separated i.e. in a free market society. And eventually a monopoly will be established?
Only if a company can offer you a cheaper, more effective product than its competitors.
|
On September 24 2011 02:39 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 02:17 mcc wrote:
No it might be also bad for a whole society. There are situations where redundancy introduced by the competition is too big compared to gains. It seems to me that it is you who is talking about a subset of the population, specifically the consumers of the product in question, whereas I talk about society as a whole and that is the difference.
But even if I considered it from the point of view of the consumers, competition might lead to situations (unlikely ones but possible) where the product is more expensive then it would be in monopoly. Economies of scale and all that. You keep talking about this "redundancy of competition" without declaring what it means or why it is bad. Please be more specific or explain some scenarios where this is likely to cause a problem. The probability for a commodity being more expensive on a free market than in a government endorsed monopoly is so incredibly low that arguing it is futile. By pointing out how unlikely it is you are basically agreeing with me in that products will be cheaper and better on a free market.
Redundancy of competition means that more than one entity is doing the same. And I do not mean the same product, but the same task. Marketing, accounting, even many management positions would be saved in one bigger company compared to two smaller competing companies, especially since some of those positions are existing only because of the need to compete. It is bad because it can be done better. Of course bigger companies(and also government organizations as they do not differ too much) have their own set of problems like corruption, long feedback loops and so on. And in some situations the economies of scale and lack of redundancy are enough to offset the corruption and other ills of big companies/government organizations.
As for your second paragraph why did you switch from competition vs non-competition to free-market vs government. I was replying specifically to your insistence of competition being always good. It is not like non-government monopoly and free-market are impossibility.
But I will bite even to your point about government. Do you have any evidence that commodity in government endorsed monopoly needs to be more expensive than in free market or are you just repeating your free-market mantra ? I see no reason for it to be so in general.
On September 24 2011 02:39 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:58 mcc wrote:
There is no clear distinction between directly and indirectly hurting someone. It is continuum not discrete.
As for your examples, what if someone puts one round into a revolver and then randomly spins it, points at you and "shoots". Should this act be allowed ? There is only (for example) 1/6 chance he will kill you. Similarly with DUI. The point is there is no such thing as clear distinction between direct and indirect hurt. Of course in practice we pick some point, but the reasoning for picking that point is not following from your simplistic criteria. You need more complex reasoning.
Shooting someone should be punishable, yes. DUI should not be punishable by state law. It is up to the private owners of roads to decide whether or not they want it to be allowed on their roads or not. (I am not for government financed roads.)
I was asking about pointing a loaded gun that has 1/6 chance of hitting you at you and pressing the trigger. Should this be allowed (it is only 1/6 chance that it will actually shoot) , should killing that person in self-defense be allowed ? But anyway you answered what, you did not answer why are those your answers. From what criteria do they follow. They cannot follow from direct/indirect hurt as I pointed out there is no such clear distinction. Any such distinction is quite arbitrary and therefore needs some reasoning behind it. Where do your direct hurt ends and indirect hurt starts ?
Also it is nice that you are against government financed roads, but reality is they mostly are and it is just your wish that they should not be. There is no objective reason why they should be private, so when discussing DUI I am discussing it in the context of the society in question not some imaginary society where governments have nearly no power. As I said previously using steroids in the society where healthcare is public is wrong as it is hurting others, DUI is wrong in any society as it is statistically significantly hurting others. From the last example you can see what my reasoning behind should be illegal/should not be illegal distinction is. If it has statistically significant (relative to it's societal utility) chance of hurting others it should be illegal.
|
On September 24 2011 03:26 mcc wrote:
Redundancy of competition means that more than one entity is doing the same. And I do not mean the same product, but the same task. Marketing, accounting, even many management positions would be saved in one bigger company compared to two smaller competing companies, especially since some of those positions are existing only because of the need to compete. It is bad because it can be done better. Of course bigger companies(and also government organizations as they do not differ too much) have their own set of problems like corruption, long feedback loops and so on. And in some situations the economies of scale and lack of redundancy are enough to offset the corruption and other ills of big companies/government organizations.
So what you mean is that the economy will be inefficient because many companies will produce the same thing? Are you serious? If there are too many companies in the same business, then the rate of profits in that branch will drop, and the worse companies will either close their firm or continue until they go bankrupt.
Even if what you said is true, how do you propose we remedy it? By regulations?
On September 24 2011 03:26 mcc wrote:
As for your second paragraph why did you switch from competition vs non-competition to free-market vs government. I was replying specifically to your insistence of competition being always good. It is not like non-government monopoly and free-market are impossibility.
Because competition vs non-competition is the same as free market vs a market regulated by the government.
On September 24 2011 03:26 mcc wrote:
But I will bite even to your point about government. Do you have any evidence that commodity in government endorsed monopoly needs to be more expensive than in free market or are you just repeating your free-market mantra ? I see no reason for it to be so in general.
I am not going to cite endless paragraphs of statistics when all you do is generalise and provide poor reasoning. I suggest you read the book I linked to earlier in the thread if you're interested in learning economics.
On September 24 2011 03:26 mcc wrote:
I was asking about pointing a loaded gun that has 1/6 chance of hitting you at you and pressing the trigger. Should this be allowed (it is only 1/6 chance that it will actually shoot) , should killing that person in self-defense be allowed ? But anyway you answered what, you did not answer why are those your answers. From what criteria do they follow. They cannot follow from direct/indirect hurt as I pointed out there is no such clear distinction. Any such distinction is quite arbitrary and therefore needs some reasoning behind it. Where do your direct hurt ends and indirect hurt starts ?
Also it is nice that you are against government financed roads, but reality is they mostly are and it is just your wish that they should not be. There is no objective reason why they should be private, so when discussing DUI I am discussing it in the context of the society in question not some imaginary society where governments have nearly no power. As I said previously using steroids in the society where healthcare is public is wrong as it is hurting others, DUI is wrong in any society as it is statistically significantly hurting others. From the last example you can see what my reasoning behind should be illegal/should not be illegal distinction is. If it has statistically significant (relative to it's societal utility) chance of hurting others it should be illegal.
Shooting the loaded gun is not punishable per se, it depends on what outcome firing the gun has. If the bullet misses, you've commited no crime and therefore you should not be punished. However, if the bullet hits me, and I die, you've committed murder and should be punished accordingly.
As for the private roads part, I fail to see how it is even remotely relevant to what we are discussing. The solution to the problem of public roads and public welfare is to abolish them because they're ineffcient and immoral.
Edit: Also, who is to calculate the "societal utility" vs chance of hurting others ratio? Where should the line be drawn? Why should it be drawn at X instead of X+0.5 per cent? I think you quite clearly see that such laws will be arbitrary.
|
On September 24 2011 04:08 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:26 mcc wrote:
Redundancy of competition means that more than one entity is doing the same. And I do not mean the same product, but the same task. Marketing, accounting, even many management positions would be saved in one bigger company compared to two smaller competing companies, especially since some of those positions are existing only because of the need to compete. It is bad because it can be done better. Of course bigger companies(and also government organizations as they do not differ too much) have their own set of problems like corruption, long feedback loops and so on. And in some situations the economies of scale and lack of redundancy are enough to offset the corruption and other ills of big companies/government organizations. So what you mean is that the economy will be inefficient because many companies will produce the same thing? Are you serious? If there are too many companies in the same business, then the rate of profits in that branch will drop, and the worse companies will either close their firm or continue until they go bankrupt. Even if what you said is true, how do you propose we remedy it? By regulations?
I specifically noted that I do not mean producing the same thing, in the second sentence. Your response does not relate to what I was talking about. I was saying something quite different.
On September 24 2011 04:08 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:26 mcc wrote:
As for your second paragraph why did you switch from competition vs non-competition to free-market vs government. I was replying specifically to your insistence of competition being always good. It is not like non-government monopoly and free-market are impossibility. Because competition vs non-competition is the same as free market vs a market regulated by the government.
Nope. You can have situations of no competition in the free market and you can have competition in government controlled parts of economy.
On September 24 2011 04:08 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:26 mcc wrote:
But I will bite even to your point about government. Do you have any evidence that commodity in government endorsed monopoly needs to be more expensive than in free market or are you just repeating your free-market mantra ? I see no reason for it to be so in general. I am not going to cite endless paragraphs of statistics when all you do is generalise and provide poor reasoning. I suggest you read the book I linked to earlier in the thread if you're interested in learning economics.
Well if you do not have the evidence, ok, good to know. Since you did not even show that "poor reasoning" I will consider that empty name-calling.
On September 24 2011 04:08 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:26 mcc wrote:
I was asking about pointing a loaded gun that has 1/6 chance of hitting you at you and pressing the trigger. Should this be allowed (it is only 1/6 chance that it will actually shoot) , should killing that person in self-defense be allowed ? But anyway you answered what, you did not answer why are those your answers. From what criteria do they follow. They cannot follow from direct/indirect hurt as I pointed out there is no such clear distinction. Any such distinction is quite arbitrary and therefore needs some reasoning behind it. Where do your direct hurt ends and indirect hurt starts ?
Also it is nice that you are against government financed roads, but reality is they mostly are and it is just your wish that they should not be. There is no objective reason why they should be private, so when discussing DUI I am discussing it in the context of the society in question not some imaginary society where governments have nearly no power. As I said previously using steroids in the society where healthcare is public is wrong as it is hurting others, DUI is wrong in any society as it is statistically significantly hurting others. From the last example you can see what my reasoning behind should be illegal/should not be illegal distinction is. If it has statistically significant (relative to it's societal utility) chance of hurting others it should be illegal. Shooting the loaded gun is not punishable per se, it depends on what outcome firing the gun has. If the bullet misses, you've commited no crime and therefore you should not be punished. However, if the bullet hits me, and I die, you've committed murder and should be punished accordingly. As for the private roads part, I fail to see how it is even remotely relevant to what we are discussing. The solution to the problem of public roads and public welfare is to abolish them because they're ineffcient and immoral. Edit: Also, who is to calculate the "societal utility" vs chance of hurting others ratio? Where should the line be drawn? Why should it be drawn at X instead of X+0.5 per cent? I think you quite clearly see that such laws will be arbitrary.
Still no answer to how do you differentiate between directly hurting and indirectly hurting ?
I see no evidence of their inefficiency and they are far from immoral. In any reasonable ethical system they are far from immoral.
In short the ideal point for the line to be drawn is to draw it in the point that primarily minimizes suffering and secondarily maximizes composite utility that is comprised of happiness, social stability and possibly others. Of course in practice approximation is used that is achieved by empirical trying. No other way to determine what works and what does not other than to try it. Of course not random trying but educated guesses.
|
On September 24 2011 00:16 Shraft wrote:
And who are they to decide what's objectively wrong? Perhaps they'll decide that steroids are bad for your health, so they'll prohibit the production and consumption of them. But if I think that the benefits of using steroids outweigh the health hazard, then why can't I use them? As long as I don't hurt anyone else, it should all be fine and dandy.
Basically, it's stupid to have a bunch of guys decide what's in the best interests of everyone.
The whole point is that they don't decide what's in the best interest of everyone individually. They decide what's best and most useful for society as a whole.
What gives you the idea that it should all be fine and dandy as long as you don't "hurt" anybody? Even if you don't hurt anybody directly, you being unhealthy still hurts the society indirectly. You still have responsibilities towards other people and the society.
Moreover, saying you think that the benefits of using steroids outweigh the health hazard is just the same as me saying that I think 2+2 really equals C rather than 4. It's not something you can have an "opinion" on - ANY substances of any sort and effects are analyzed in detail and a fully informed decision is made based on that. Both the damage and potential damage to your health would be considered, as would the real benefits that your body will experience (it's all biology).
If you "disagree" with the decision based on facts, it only means you're willing to potentially jeopardize your health more than the safety standards will allow. This in the huge majority of cases will mean you either don't know what you're doing anyway, that your judgement is somehow impaired, or that you're gambling and hoping you'll win. Whichever it is, it's probably not the best idea to let you make the decision.
|
On September 24 2011 04:51 mcc wrote:
Well if you do not have the evidence, ok, good to know. Since you did not even show that "poor reasoning" I will consider that empty name-calling.
Okay, so where's your proof? You don't even provide sound reasoning to back your assertions. Here's a graph that shows how economic growth and freedom are related, and here's an article on why competition is good.
On September 24 2011 04:51 mcc wrote:
I see no evidence of their inefficiency and they are far from immoral. In any reasonable ethical system they are far from immoral.
For evidence that government spending is inefficient/sub-optimal, read Economics in One Lesson. Again, the evidence is there, you only refuse to see it.
I am not going to answer in this thread until you start to actually provide sufficient reasoning and sources on all the bullshit that you're spewing. I have wasted enough of my time slamming my head against the brick wall that is your mind.
|
What gives you the idea that it should all be fine and dandy as long as you don't "hurt" anybody? Even if you don't hurt anybody directly, you being unhealthy still hurts the society indirectly. You still have responsibilities towards other people and the society.
The idea of freedom, I suppose. The whole "you being unhealthy hurts society; therefore, you cannot be unhealthy" is representative of an oppressive regime. As benevolent as it may be, it's still oppressive.
I'm not too big of a fan of pure democracy, but the kind of technocracy that controls people's lives to that extent is too much.
|
On September 24 2011 05:54 Talin wrote:
If you "disagree" with the decision based on facts, it only means you're willing to potentially jeopardize your health more than the safety standards will allow. This in the huge majority of cases will mean you either don't know what you're doing anyway, that your judgement is somehow impaired, or that you're gambling and hoping you'll win. Whichever it is, it's probably not the best idea to let you make the decision.
How can you reach said decision by solely relying on facts? If steroids allows me to increase my muscle mass by 20 per cent in one month, but increases the risk of me having a heart attack by 5 per cent, who can decide if the risk is greater than the gain? There is no way to reach that conclusion by solely relying on facts. It is all subjective.
|
On September 24 2011 06:19 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +What gives you the idea that it should all be fine and dandy as long as you don't "hurt" anybody? Even if you don't hurt anybody directly, you being unhealthy still hurts the society indirectly. You still have responsibilities towards other people and the society. The idea of freedom, I suppose. The whole "you being unhealthy hurts society; therefore, you cannot be unhealthy" is representative of an oppressive regime. As benevolent as it may be, it's still oppressive. I'm not too big of a fan of pure democracy, but the kind of technocracy that controls people's lives to that extent is too much.
The democracies we live in already do control our lives to that extent (hence illegal substances like drugs, limits on alcohol consumption etc).
It's really nothing you don't already experience, it's only the underlying reasoning behind it that doesn't get thrown into your face as much. In general, no modern nation state will knowingly risk the health of its population more than absolutely necessary - all of them want as many "optimal" citizens as possible (at least physically, not so much intellectually unfortunately), for obvious reasons. The only reason why some of the things that shouldn't be legal are legal is because they also depend on keeping people as happy as possible or bad things will happen.
There will always be limits on freedom. How oppressive those limits feel is a matter of perception and comparison. The question is - how many of your non-essential elements of freedom are you willing to give up to contribute to the advancement of your society, or humanity as a whole? Not based on somebody's whim, but based on objective facts.
On September 24 2011 06:23 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 05:54 Talin wrote:
If you "disagree" with the decision based on facts, it only means you're willing to potentially jeopardize your health more than the safety standards will allow. This in the huge majority of cases will mean you either don't know what you're doing anyway, that your judgement is somehow impaired, or that you're gambling and hoping you'll win. Whichever it is, it's probably not the best idea to let you make the decision. How can you reach said decision by solely relying on facts? If steroids allows me to increase my muscle mass by 20 per cent in one month, but increases the risk of me having a heart attack by 5 per cent, who can decide if the risk is greater than the gain? There is no way to reach that conclusion by solely relying on facts. It is all subjective.
Consider the following questions: In modern society, how valuable is it to increase your body mass 20 percent in a single month? What does it allow you to do that you couldn't do otherwise? How essential is it (if at all) to what you do and how you live? All of those questions have very objective answers, and answers determine how much of the benefit is real, and how much of it is you only doing it because you like it.
Moreover, let's say you're willing to take that risk anyway because you just feel like it. But in order to allow YOU to take that risk, because law must apply to everyone, we must also allow EVERYONE the freedom to take that risk. Which WILL (statistically, when applied over a larger population) result in deaths of innocent people as a direct consequence. Deaths that would not happen if you were willing to give up the trivial, non-essential benefits you get. Why would the government gamble with lives like that, over something so trivial as well?
|
On September 24 2011 06:13 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 04:51 mcc wrote:
Well if you do not have the evidence, ok, good to know. Since you did not even show that "poor reasoning" I will consider that empty name-calling. Okay, so where's your proof? You don't even provide sound reasoning to back your assertions. Here's a graph that shows how economic growth and freedom are related, and here's an article on why competition is good.
My proof of what ? If you have problem with one of my statement that have burden of proof, quote it and ask for the evidence/proof. But frankly I made only few and very weak statements compared to you who made plenty of strong statements that have much more burden of proof than mine and you provided no evidence for any of your absolute and definitive statements that I reacted to in the beginning.
Your first link is no evidence of what we were talking about, read what I asked evidence for and read your link, they do not match. Seeing as you link to mises.org I am starting to suspect you actually are going to just post loosely related walls of text as is usual for people that frequent that site (experience from previous threads on TL). The one about competition is no evidence, it is an argumentative essay. I also am not arguing with Hayek, I am arguing with you. If you want to use his arguments, you can, but in your own words and pick only the parts that are actually relevant to what we are discussing.
On September 24 2011 06:13 Shraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 04:51 mcc wrote:
I see no evidence of their inefficiency and they are far from immoral. In any reasonable ethical system they are far from immoral.
For evidence that government spending is inefficient/sub-optimal, read Economics in One Lesson. Again, the evidence is there, you only refuse to see it. I am not going to answer in this thread until you start to actually provide sufficient reasoning and sources on all the bullshit that you're spewing. I have wasted enough of my time slamming my head against the brick wall that is your mind.
When posting evidence that is in a book, post page when the data in question can be found. I am not going to read possibly useless books just so I can find something that is your burden to provide.
If you require evidence for my statements, quote them and do so. As for reasoning, compared to you I provided plenty of such whereas you provided only absolute statements backed up by absolutely nothing. But I expect you to just employ broken record discussion tactics and repeat your statements over and over.
|
On September 24 2011 06:29 Talin wrote:
Consider the following questions: In modern society, how valuable is it to increase your body mass 20 percent in a single month? What does it allow you to do that you couldn't do otherwise? How essential is it (if at all) to what you do and how you live? All of those questions have very objective answers, and answers determine how much of the benefit is real, and how much of it is you only doing it because you like it.
Doing something because I like it = doing something because I (subjectively) value the gains of the action over the eventual losses. There is no way whatsoever for you to define the "real" or objective value in something. AS I SAID, it can't be defined by an objective standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
