"Freedom" thread or something

Altruism doesn't have to be forced.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: manofmystery wrote: I believe it was Dean that was engaged in the boycott. Regardless, the aim doesn't change my response. Standards are higher in a competitive market than in one that has fallen victim to regulatory capture. Regulations (including copyright and patent law) limit the amount of businesses that are fiscally able to compete with a company such as Nestle, for example. This means that a company like Nestle only has to worry about meeting regulatory standards that they, through size and influence, often have helped write. Regulations are always reactions to the last event so they are always behind the times in an ever changing market. The only thing government action accomplishes is a corruption of the market that insulates large companies from the need to adapt to ever changing competition and demands of said market (the market being all of us). This is just the practical argument against government intervention. There is also the idea that consumers should be free to make their own transactions because it is their natural right to. Yes, it was indeed Dean. My mistake. Anyway, if there had been no government regulations, chances are Nestle would have never changed their product at all because most people are indifferent to or unaware of the problem with it (case in point, I still don't know what the problem with Nestle's products was that launched the boycott). I assume that most people, if informed about the problem, would agree that Nestle should change their product, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would stop buying it, not to mention that most consumers of the product at hand will probably never hear of the boycott. Thus, without government regulation, it is unlikely that the problem would have ever been fixed at all. In an unregulated market, the apathy of the majority always wins over the initiative of the minority.

The Doctor wrote: As I've said before, I'm comfortable with my middle class lifestyle.  The selfishness here (I will admit there is some) is that I want to preserve that lifestyle for myself.  The altruistic part of me wants everyone to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle.  I don't want or need excessive riches to be happy.

Edited by manofmystery - January 25 2013 at 13:48

manofmystery wrote:   The Doctor wrote: That wasn't quite what I was implying Brian. I realize the private police thing is more of an anarcho-capitalist idea than a libertarian one. But libertarians (at least the ones here) do place a very high value on the freedom of the market, the ability to freely buy or not buy, and the ability to freely sell or not sell. But the anarcho-capitalist view of a private police force seems to undermine the value that libertarians place on that freedom. That was the point I was trying to make. How does private security undermine freedom? The right to defend oneself is a core freedom. Defense an aggression are not the same thing. If Walmart came to you and demanded $500 (as you put forth in a previous example) you would be perfectly within your rights to defend yourself from their illegitimate aggression yet you are unable to when the IRS does the same thing, in reality, because they are an agency of government. Government legitimizes abhorrent aggressions under a false banner of legitimacy. Limiting government and others from aggressing upon anyone is why I'm am a libertarian and not fully an anarchist. I do believe that there need to be a document, like our Constitution, that severly limits the actions of government and establishes that individual liberties cannot be infringed upon.   The Doctor wrote: As I've said before, I'm comfortable with my middle class lifestyle.  The selfishness here (I will admit there is some) is that I want to preserve that lifestyle for myself.  The altruistic part of me wants everyone to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle.  I don't want or need excessive riches to be happy.    It isn't altruistic to want everyone to live the same lifestyle.  You have no right to decide what someone else requires find happiness, just as no one has the right to decide that for you.  What makes you think that every individual would be comfortable with a middle class lifestyle?

Edited by The Doctor - January 25 2013 at 14:51

manofmystery wrote: Whether the majority of the population is apathetic or not hardly matters. Sure, some will continue to buy the product they are accustomed to over newly arrived competitors products but so what? It is within their rights to do so. Government is not meant to be one's nanny.

Sure it is within their rights to do so, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that there are many people who might care about the issue and might be opposed to the company's practices (whatever they are), but not enough to stop buying the product or look for an alternative. It is then up to competitors to create a rivaling product, aggressively advertise it to a massive amount of people and convince them that the issue is important enough to switch products in order to change the status quo. Somehow you seem to be very confident that this will happen in an unregulated market, but I'm not so sure. Government regulation, for all the reservations you might have about it otherwise, is guaranteed to solve this particular problem without opposition from anyone except for those very few people like you who oppose it for ideological reasons.

Didn't quite have the same aura with Shatner.

 

Edited by Negoba - January 25 2013 at 16:27

The T wrote: All I can say is Negoba's points gain an aura of wisdom with that avatar of sage-like Peter Gabriel

I was thinking that!



Well that is good to know Doc.

I'm a little confused by the "earn" and "make" statement. I can guess you mean that the lesser off are not making what they really should be earning, likewise a billionaire is making more than they really earn. You mentioned the extremes so would you say, generally, those in the middle are about right at the earn/make line?
I see what you are getting at, but the issue I have is those are subjective words. Even though you could say a low income worker busts their ass and doesnt make much, while a CEO may sit on their ass and make a ton...simple you make what you make. You feel maybe a CEO makes more than their worth but someone else may disagree. The CEO will disagree and who is to decide? You? If you have your way, it wont always be. Maybe I get my turn and say "100 million a year is fair"
So lets say we get everyone to a nice middle income, like $50,000. Well what if JoeBob says "nice but itd be great if we all had more, like $75,000" and thus redistributes even more.
Long story short: its fine in theory but in reality "who decides what" is a huge issue. Basically, you advocate your way.

Naturally I'll take the "market distributes income correctly because you can't really distribute income". I don't believe we have a communal pool of income, thus it can't really be distributed incorrectly. Its our individual incomes and some can be used for a few, non-redistributive common goods.
Like man, the average start pay for highway toll workers in NJ (at least when I checked the government site) was 60K! The average start pay for corporate jobs is 30-35 for me. Now you may say "ha well see thats the market/corporations failing" but also can easily say "the government sets the bar too high". Someone somewhere decided that number for toll workers is fine, and I think it kinda sucks that while a fine job...you can need no college education, no work experience or even people skills and make double my income...because I chose to go to school and compete with others? Especially since I also pay into their income.
So yeah, maybe I get into the position and say "toll workers should make 10K a year" then Doc does and says "100K" It should be set by the market. It will be fairer, and their pay wont be earned via force.


Edited by JJLehto - January 25 2013 at 17:26

JJLehto wrote: oh one more doc. We use redistribute so much, but it really isn't a literal "take from rich give to poor" its done via programs...which are open to abuse and inefficiency. Anti poverty spending keeps increasing but poverty has remained stable...fluctuating with the overall economy. So we need direct $$ transfers, which actually Friedman kinda advocated now that I think bout it thellama73 wrote: Why can't we just cut government a little? What do people really imagine would happen if we got rid of the Department of Education? Are our education standards noticeably higher than they were before it existed? Why can't we lift subsidies for corn and sugar? Would we really starve without them? This no cuts whatsoever attitude is what I don't understand. Obviously be we can theorize out the wazoo here! Real life, more incremental and smaller cuts are the better scenario. I'd love a little! I think many lefties, righties, centralies? would be ok with ending subsidies for corn and sugar. That's just boring and no one cares The Dept of Education thing freaks out liberals (IDK why) but I don't see the need for it. I've actually seen people say "Paul that MADMAN! cut the dept of education!?" and people like and agree, what a loon, but not a word is said about it. Just the idea of cutting the DoE is freaky, sad because just a little research was enough to make me think "whats the point of it?" Not that someone must agree but I hate that idea of cutting something is blasphemous, without even looking at it

Responding here to both your statement about direct wealth transfers, and Logan's statement about government cuts.  First, I think direct wealth transfers would be the most efficient way to go, to get more money in the hands of the working poor and the non-working poor.  Of course, for the working poor, the easiest way to do that would be with full employment, a living minimum wage and to stop sending jobs oversees unless and until we do have full employment.  Maybe the CEO could you know make 40 million a year instead of 50 million a year and pay his employees a reasonable wage.  But if there is some other method for doing that, hey I'm all for it.

@Logan, I have never once said nothing should be cut (not that you were accusing me of having said that).  I am perfectly willing to cut out wasteful programs, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, pork projects, military spending and so forth.  I just don't want to make any cuts on the backs of the poor.  And preferably not on the backs of the middle class either.  Some of those cuts should go to reducing the deficit and some of those cuts should go to expanding the social safety net. 

Now, if you'll excuse me, this thread has been eating into my Skyrim time way too much.

The Doctor wrote: @Logan, I have never once said nothing should be cut (not that you were accusing me of having said that).  I am perfectly willing to cut out wasteful programs, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, pork projects, military spending and so forth.  I just don't want to make any cuts on the backs of the poor.  And preferably not on the backs of the middle class either.  Some of those cuts should go to reducing the deficit and some of those cuts should go to expanding the social safety net.

Well at least we agree on something.

I think a lot of farmers and military folks are middle class though, so I don't know if you'd be willing to cut those programs after all.