Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wealth Distribution in the USA

1…1819202123

Comments

  • #662
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Loads of people go on about begrudgery in Ireland, it's such a cliche at this stage. I don't see much of it at all, ask the average taxi driver who should run the country and the answer will be Michael O'Leary, attacking wealth and success isn't that prevalent at all.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #663
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Obviously each camp in a debate of this kind is going to view their opponents as 'infidels' of sorts so I think the 'huh you're like a theist' argument is extremely pointless.

    1. Identify group of people most other people dislike or look down upon
    2. Compare opponent to a member the disliked group
    3. Win!

    However, in stressing the alleged impossibility of society to evolve without a central 'intelligence' (the state) guiding the process, it is easy to see that the statists have far more in common with the creationists than do libertarians. To the statists on boards.ie, the watchmaker is blind only when it suits them. As Proudhon said: liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order. The theistic comparison with the modern statist who tries to design everything from the entire economy to people's eating habits is not hard to miss.


  • #664
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Valmont wrote: »
    the modern statist who tries to design everything from the entire economy to people's eating habits is not hard to miss.

    Kim Jung Un is it?


  • #665
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I'd agree that economically a free market without govt intervention would run more smoothly with lower pricing, but I still think that some intervention is required to, for example, protect the environment.

    If we have two private companies competing in market space, where one of them (say company A) takes measures to reduce pollution, their costs will increase and they may be beaten out of the market.

    Now you might argue that if the consumers actually cared about the environment they would pick company A, even with the price differential, but most people don't care. We have to assume the average person has an unrealistic amount of knowledge to make rational informed decisions.

    To combat this, I think we still need some regulation, preferably by nominated groups specialized in specific areas (e.g. global warming scientists) - my mind is very open right now though - just reading up on libertarian philosophies etc.

    What are your thoughts on this?


  • #666
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Valmont wrote: »
    Obviously each camp in a debate of this kind is going to view their opponents as 'infidels' of sorts so I think the 'huh you're like a theist' argument is extremely pointless.

    1. Identify group of people most other people dislike or look down upon
    2. Compare opponent to a member the disliked group
    3. Win!

    However, in stressing the alleged impossibility of society to evolve without a central 'intelligence' (the state) guiding the process, it is easy to see that the statists have far more in common with the creationists than do libertarians. To the statists on boards.ie, the watchmaker is blind only when it suits them. As Proudhon said: liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order. The theistic comparison with the modern statist who tries to design everything from the entire economy to people's eating habits is not hard to miss.

    If you want to go down that line Government would be God whereas the free market would be a basic tenet for liberterarians, the Holy Ghost as it were.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #667
    April O Neill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,305 ✭✭✭April O Neill


    Jernal wrote: »
    E-cigarettes are also controversial because they contain nicotine. All the good work done to eliminate smoking and addiction to probably the most dangerous chemical to the human brain will be for naught if e-cigs become mainstream. They're not safe, they're just safer than cigarettes and even there given how some e-cigs are produced from contaminated tobacco (cheapest source) it's not even clear. In theory they should be safer. In theory though nicotine, unless it's for a controlled medicinal use, is a deadly substance that people could do without.

    So, even if big tobacco didn't exist e-cigs would still be controversial. Vaping is fine if its' a mean to quits smoking but beyond that e-cigs are only a cosmetic fix to the problems caused by nicotine.

    Hmmm, nicotine is the addictive agent in cigarette, but not the cancer- and/or emphysema-causing component. So, it is possible that e-cigs could be a good thing but they are still just a work in progress.


  • #668
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    That's not a libertarian argument. Its just an argument or stance that a lot of people across the spectrum would subscribe to.

    Well it is in the US. The left likes the government controlling the money. It was voted it entirely by Democrats as an emergency panic reaction to the economy at the time.

    And I would argue a huge portion of the GOP does too. One party two faces, this is why libertarianism is growing. It's showing another face.


  • #669
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #670
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #671
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Just going to leave this here:

    The 20Cent guide to Libertarians
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056435210


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #673
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    It becomes tiring responding to these arguments over time, because they are all in one way or another a repetition of the same assertion: Unregulated markets can self-regulate.
    This is the core belief behind all of these arguments, and as others say, it is a borderline theistic one due to the problems associated with it.

    At this stage of the discussion, there is less and less actual debate going on, just (in my opinion) a superficial pretence of one, for repeating this assertion in various different ways, while avoiding the problems with it.

    The problem is (again - repeating this maybe the 5th time now): There is a lot of past precedent showing the move towards unregulated markets does not end well, and not really any showing it can work on the scale of an entire economy as the Libertarian and general free-market message promotes.

    This problem is never responded to though, it is steadfastly ignored, and a lot of posters have been bringing it up waiting for a response:
    At what point, should the promoting of that belief minus any discussion of its problems, be considered soapboxing?


  • #674
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Valmont wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Ok and then...
    However, in stressing the alleged impossibility of society to evolve without a central 'intelligence' (the state) guiding the process, it is easy to see that the statists have far more in common with the creationists than do libertarians. To the statists on boards.ie, the watchmaker is blind only when it suits them. As Proudhon said: liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order. The theistic comparison with the modern statist who tries to design everything from the entire economy to people's eating habits is not hard to miss.
    This. Really?

    And again with the "Statist" strawman stuff. It's really beyond tiresome at this stage and really makes libertarianism look lacking if that's one of their best arguments to bring to the debate. Damn few if any on this thread have said government is faultless, nor has anyone suggested designing the entire economy or eating habits, far from it. Few would have much of a struggle finding many deficiencies in our government and would have little struggle finding deficiencies in the US government either(which much of libertarian thought seems to be concerned with and based on/against). So the "Statists" are only too happy to say that governments have faults and lots of them and some are happy to suggest ways to reduce faults for the sake of society, including reducing government. Oh yes, I know, there's a shock.

    The libertarians on the other hand much more often than not have a blanket anti government stance and a blanket pro free market stance. Has a single libertarian said that there are faults in the free market system? Has a single libertarian suggested ways to reduce such faults? Not that I can see, save for one instance when PB admitted "downsides" regarding the free market and drugs. Even then he had no answer or suggestion of how such a downside could be tackled, but merely fell back on the handy trigger phrases of "nanny state", "freedom" and the like. So Valmont if a Martian was observing this debate which position would they equate more with rigid our side is clearly the correct side fundamentalist thought?

    Then we have the nebulous phrases and words mentioned above. Take your quote from Proudhon; "liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order.". Looks great doesn't it? Nice and catchy, look great on a tee shirt, appearing deep, however it actually means feck all, or needs to go further to define what it's looking to say. It's bending one generality to another. What definition of liberty? What definition of order? It might come as a shock to the Sheldon Coopers of the world, but these are not some mathematical certainties open to easy definition. The history of philosophy would have been a very short one if they had been. These are not unchanging givens when it comes to human nature or the nature of human society. Take the Statist tag. Again a vague description. To steal more from the theist bank, statism is a very broad church. Communists are statists, fascists are statists, social democrats are statists, dictatorships are statists. Even a libertarian society would still have some sort of state(unless we're talking about the full on types who would free market the police etc). So even the libertarian's are statists to some degree. It's an empty vague definition, much more akin to using infidels in a debate.
    Permabear wrote:
    Believing that the free market, private property rights, and tort law are the best way to protect the environment, libertarians would prefer to have all property and resources in private ownership so that owners, who have no conflict of interest with industry, could directly defend their property rights against polluters. This would conserve resources and internalize the costs of pollution, the opposite of what the current approach achieves.
    Only in Lala land. Again you use an example of bad government. Funny enough it's nigh on a free market government, where if you have the most cash you can lobby more and control government more. This does not mean an independent environmental agency outside of the free market is bad, only that it's implementation is. Anyway, like in other examples of this kinda libertarian argument, if you remove "the government", it simply removes the need for industry to have to lobby/pay it off. It doesn't have to lobby for regulation anymore and if history proves anything it proves it sure as hell aint gonna self regulate if it affects the bottom line. If industry would self regulate naturally in a free market world, why has it consistently opposed regulation and spent billions to do so? So magically removing the need to spend billions means it would all magically level out? Yep Lalaland.

    Secondly such a privatisation notion would not be a level playing field of interests or power. If person/industry A owns and controls millions of acres of land and person/industry B owns and controls a 1000 acres of land, who has more power to direct how the land is used, or abused? OK so B takes A to court over pollution. In the free market world, A has more resources and can pay for better representation and/or can keep B in court for years. A will in the majority of cases win. Without an independent agency(not the dependent agency of bad US governance) B and all the other B's are fooked by the A's. BTW before the usual leftist/begrugery/statist stuff comes back, I have no problem with A having more. Fair play to them. However I do have a problem where A has no independent wider societal oversight, which could step in on behalf of the B's if and wehn required for the good of all.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #675
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Yes the ridiculous thing about the 'Statist' label, is that (as you say) it actually applies to a huge number of Libertarians, because (I would say most of them probably, but not sure) support a minarchist state.


  • #676
    Willow Large Sandstone
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Willow Large Sandstone


    "It's really beyond tiresome at this stage"
    indeed, so is "lol ur a religion lol", lying, and "that doesn't work because it's lala land". Another debate ruined so


  • #677
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bluewolf wrote: »
    "It's really beyond tiresome at this stage"
    indeed, so is "lol ur a religion lol", lying, and "that doesn't work because it's lala land". Another debate ruined so
    Probably speaking for everyone here: It's a criticism of the views not a personal criticism (even if it can feel like that, since people have a personal investment in these views) - why do the problems with the move towards unregulated markets often ending badly in reality (with there being no real precedent of this working well on the scale of an entire economy) not get addressed?

    The comparisons to theism happen because of this never being addressed, and noticably being evaded - this then reduces the credibility of the views, because these are real problems that don't get answers, yet the message is promoted despite that.

    The way to move the debate forward then, and keep it constructive, is to address the problems (which might result in needing to reconsider personal views as well, in the process of thinking that through), rather than avoiding the problems only for them to come up again in the future.


  • #678
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    bluewolf wrote: »
    "It's really beyond tiresome at this stage"
    indeed, so is "lol ur a religion lol", lying, and "that doesn't work because it's lala land". Another debate ruined so
    Throwing toys out of the pram now? The religion comparison came up late in the debate and was responded to as well as supported. Who is lying? That's a new one. Rather than rebuke me for the lalaland comment respond by showing me how it's not. What ruins the debate is the Libertarian position of refusing to engage, or trotting out the same unproven ideas.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #679
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It sure is. Ignore all points made and attack the poster. Typical response.


  • #680
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    It is indeed PB and I agree 100% with him. Take this part; I can disagree fundamentally with Left-wing anarchists while still being sensitive of their point of view and understanding of why they hold it. I wouldn't make a post like you did about Left-wing anarchism because I'm not so intellectually bankrupt as to stubbornly ignore all possible merits and arguments of things I a priori disagree with.

    So Permabear, Bluewolf, Valmont et al can you see the possible merits and arguments in having government?

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #681
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Ok and then...


    This. Really?

    And again with the "Statist" strawman stuff. It's really beyond tiresome at this stage and really makes libertarianism look lacking if that's one of their best arguments to bring to the debate. Damn few if any on this thread have said government is faultless, nor has anyone suggested designing the entire economy or eating habits, far from it. Few would have much of a struggle finding many deficiencies in our government and would have little struggle finding deficiencies in the US government either(which much of libertarian thought seems to be concerned with and based on/against). So the "Statists" are only too happy to say that governments have faults and lots of them and some are happy to suggest ways to reduce faults for the sake of society, including reducing government. Oh yes, I know, there's a shock.

    The libertarians on the other hand much more often than not have a blanket anti government stance and a blanket pro free market stance. Has a single libertarian said that there are faults in the free market system? Has a single libertarian suggested ways to reduce such faults? Not that I can see, save for one instance when PB admitted "downsides" regarding the free market and drugs. Even then he had no answer or suggestion of how such a downside could be tackled, but merely fell back on the handy trigger phrases of "nanny state", "freedom" and the like. So Valmont if a Martian was observing this debate which position would they equate more with rigid our side is clearly the correct side fundamentalist thought?

    Then we have the nebulous phrases and words mentioned above. Take your quote from Proudhon; "liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order.". Looks great doesn't it? Nice and catchy, look great on a tee shirt, appearing deep, however it actually means feck all, or needs to go further to define what it's looking to say. It's bending one generality to another. What definition of liberty? What definition of order? It might come as a shock to the Sheldon Coopers of the world, but these are not some mathematical certainties open to easy definition. The history of philosophy would have been a very short one if they had been. These are not unchanging givens when it comes to human nature or the nature of human society. Take the Statist tag. Again a vague description. To steal more from the theist bank, statism is a very broad church. Communists are statists, fascists are statists, social democrats are statists, dictatorships are statists. Even a libertarian society would still have some sort of state(unless we're talking about the full on types who would free market the police etc). So even the libertarian's are statists to some degree. It's an empty vague definition, much more akin to using infidels in a debate.

    Only in Lala land. Again you use an example of bad government. Funny enough it's nigh on a free market government, where if you have the most cash you can lobby more and control government more. This does not mean an independent environmental agency outside of the free market is bad, only that it's implementation is. Anyway, like in other examples of this kinda libertarian argument, if you remove "the government", it simply removes the need for industry to have to lobby/pay it off. It doesn't have to lobby for regulation anymore and if history proves anything it proves it sure as hell aint gonna self regulate if it affects the bottom line. If industry would self regulate naturally in a free market world, why has it consistently opposed regulation and spent billions to do so? So magically removing the need to spend billions means it would all magically level out? Yep Lalaland.

    Secondly such a privatisation notion would not be a level playing field of interests or power. If person/industry A owns and controls millions of acres of land and person/industry B owns and controls a 1000 acres of land, who has more power to direct how the land is used, or abused? OK so B takes A to court over pollution. In the free market world, A has more resources and can pay for better representation and/or can keep B in court for years. A will in the majority of cases win. Without an independent agency(not the dependent agency of bad US governance) B and all the other B's are fooked by the A's. BTW before the usual leftist/begrugery/statist stuff comes back, I have no problem with A having more. Fair play to them. However I do have a problem where A has no independent wider societal oversight, which could step in on behalf of the B's if and wehn required for the good of all.

    In fairness Wibbs I gave a very good example of a company cornering the eyewear market, eyewear being something myopics have very little choice about. They were able to manipulate the free market in such a way that the consumer losers.

    Now I honestly don't k now what you do about that,if that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes, but I can't see how government making more rules would do more good than harm? Do you? I was tempted to write to specsavers so they could move in on this market.

    There is no perfect libertarian. Even Rand Paul has his critics from libertarians and I suspect alot of them depend on the conservative base.

    The thing is though, the media and often the public will attack the wealthy of the right wing, but the fact that John Kerry has married a Heinz heiress, no one cares. Shrug.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    sephir0th wrote: »
    I'd agree that economically a free market without govt intervention would run more smoothly with lower pricing, but I still think that some intervention is required to, for example, protect the environment.

    If we have two private companies competing in market space, where one of them (say company A) takes measures to reduce pollution, their costs will increase and they may be beaten out of the market.

    Now you might argue that if the consumers actually cared about the environment they would pick company A, even with the price differential, but most people don't care. We have to assume the average person has an unrealistic amount of knowledge to make rational informed decisions.

    To combat this, I think we still need some regulation, preferably by nominated groups specialized in specific areas (e.g. global warming scientists) - my mind is very open right now though - just reading up on libertarian philosophies etc.

    What are your thoughts on this?

    There's a really interesting case right now emerging in California where a popular hot sauce company is creating bad smells for the neighbours. This is a fascinating one, because they need obviously to manufacture, but the neighbor hood smells bad as a result, obviously will also compromise property values. Tort lawyers dream of a case!


  • #683
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    20Cent wrote: »
    It sure is. Ignore all points made and attack the poster. Typical response.

    They've actually been very few personal attacks on this thread, imo.


  • #684
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jernal wrote: »
    They've actually been very few personal attacks on this thread, imo.
    Agreed - that's what's let it come so far as well (even if the core issue, of the feasibility of economy-wide unregulated markets, is avoided).

    There's less of the grouping-together trench warfare that these threads would previously be (where views seemed to be emotionally/socially reinforced), and a lot more civility and less of the condescension/ridicule that was previously more common, which would obstruct debate (which is worth noting all around, to be careful not to enter into it or let it begin).

    So yes, even if the debate is stuck, this time the core problem is exposed, and is seen (maybe...) - whereas before it would be hidden/deflected by the departure from logical debate towards more emotive debate.


  • #685
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    In fairness Wibbs I gave a very good example of a company cornering the eyewear market, eyewear being something myopics have very little choice about. They were able to manipulate the free market in such a way that the consumer losers.

    Now I honestly don't k now what you do about that,if that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes, but I can't see how government making more rules would do more good than harm? Do you? I was tempted to write to specsavers so they could move in on this market.
    Stronger oversight from anti monopoly agencies is one way. It's not ideal and would be in need of constant appraisal and reform, but it is one option.
    There is no perfect libertarian. Even Rand Paul has his critics from libertarians and I suspect alot of them depend on the conservative base.
    To be fair you can say that for every political philosophy there is. The no true Scotsman is used internally and by critics. Goes for the right, left , whatever. The problem I'd see with libertarianism is too many of it's ideas are either vague or too general. Specifics are to be avoided. So terms like "freedom" and "Liberty" while while instantly provoking a "hell yes!" response from pretty much everyone, can mean different things to different people at different times. Individualism is another one. Again Hell yes! however a person doesn't exist in a vacuum and what may good for one, may not be so good for many, or all. It can go the other way too. Majority rule! Yep hell yea again, democracy and all that, but again it's more complex, as minorities must also be somehow accommodated as part of the whole.
    The thing is though, the media and often the public will attack the wealthy of the right wing, but the fact that John Kerry has married a Heinz heiress, no one cares. Shrug.
    I think that's more an American thing though? A publicly left wing type marrying wealth would be slaughtered for champagne socialism in media and common discourse in pretty much most of Europe. Hypocrite would be a word bandied about. Then again I suspect Europeans wouldn't tend to see Kerry as particularly left wing in the first place, so might not even notice his marriage. I could be wrong but I'd reckon the common perception(however inaccurate) in Europe and Ireland would be that the US was a "right wing" nation by general preference and that socialism was a dirty word, even the left preferring "liberal" as a label.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #686
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Stronger oversight from anti monopoly agencies is one way. It's not ideal and would be in need of constant appraisal and reform, but it is one option.

    To be fair you can say that for every political philosophy there is. The no true Scotsman is used internally and by critics. Goes for the right, left , whatever. The problem I'd see with libertarianism is too many of it's ideas are either vague or too general. Specifics are to be avoided. So terms like "freedom" and "Liberty" while while instantly provoking a "hell yes!" response from pretty much everyone, can mean different things to different people at different times. Individualism is another one. Again Hell yes! however a person doesn't exist in a vacuum and what may good for one, may not be so good for many, or all. It can go the other way too. Majority rule! Yep hell yea again, democracy and all that, but again it's more complex, as minorities must also be somehow accommodated as part of the whole.

    I think that's more an American thing though? A publicly left wing type marrying wealth would be slaughtered for champagne socialism in media and common discourse in pretty much most of Europe. Hypocrite would be a word bandied about. Then again I suspect Europeans wouldn't tend to see Kerry as particularly left wing in the first place, so might not even notice his marriage. I could be wrong but I'd reckon the common perception(however inaccurate) in Europe and Ireland would be that the US was a "right wing" nation by general preference and that socialism was a dirty word, even the left preferring "liberal" as a label.

    One of the problems with this debate is that you cannot compare the left and the right in the US with the left and the right in Europe. So there is a language/communication issue there. That should be acknowledged and remembered from both sides, for the sake of a healthy and productive argument.

    I would agree with the gaping hole in the social side of libertarianism, which is why I think I am more in the conservative camp on this one although at times I can lean libertarian. I don't know if they are living in reality on this one, for example family courts. I hate family courts on one level because they are arbitrary money suckers but on the other hand, they are necessary evils. I think thats about my take on them. However, judges need to be more accountable. They are exempt from lawsuits for example, perhaps that regulation should be lifted? I also would never ever support things like NAMBLA being ok, no I'm not so live and let live on that regard or on religiously justifiable child abuse like circumcisions. Libertarians don't want to talk about this stuff and when people like Rand Paul do make moral stands, other libertarians complain. I genuinely don't know if you can resolve this, or even in a system with such checks and balances if it even needs to be resolved.

    So a friend of mine is not letting his kids trick or treat. He says its teaching them how to beg and shake down their elders. I told him to look at it another way, its teaching them how to deliver a good sales pitch. He felt a bit better about it. Exactly the same activity, different spin.

    Liberty is not chaos. Language is a good example. We have rules of grammar, spelling etc, because we do not live in a vaccum, there are agreements so that things can make sense right? Without those agreements and rules and constructions, none of us are really free, it's just gobbledegook right?


  • #687
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    In practice though, this only works if every piece of land worth conserving has a potential for profit - or if polluting that piece of land and destroying the habitat comes at a cost to the owner. If I owned a piece of land in the rainforest, under a free market, I would probably be better off selling the land to the highest corporate bidder or rent it out and give them free reign to exploit it.

    Note, this scenario is not some 'tragedy of the commons' - I'm just saying in the free market I'm free to maximize profits regardless of the impact to the environment - I don't think I should be free to do that.


  • #688
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Of those who oppose this free market idea what would you say is its biggest strength or benefit compared to the current ideal system?

    Of those who support the idea what would you say is its biggest weakness or disadvantage compared to the current ideal system?


  • #689
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jernal wrote: »
    Of those who oppose this free market idea what would you say is its biggest strength or benefit compared to the current ideal system?

    Of those who support the idea what would you say is its biggest weakness or disadvantage compared to the current ideal system?
    I'd say its biggest strength is providing a decentralized way of managing the economy, and society, without the negative effects of government interference; this can range from corruption, to incompetence and bad lawmaking/regulation, and the potential of future governments trying to be more authoritarian in their management of the economy/society (due to the potential for all this, I view government involvement as harmful by-default).

    There is a limit to this though, before you get to the point where a lack of government involvement allows the proliferation of different kinds of harm (for example, fraud) that can plague unregulated markets - so it's a matter of striking a balance (which is why even if I view government involvement as harmful by-default, a complete lack of government involvement can be more harmful).

    The important point, is that whatever system you talk about, you need to talk about how it actually will work in reality, and this needs to be judged in some kind of empirical way based on past evidence (i.e. evidence-based policymaking); not talk about how the idealized version of it that your 'message' promotes, says it will work in reality (because if that's in conflict with past precedent, and no resolution to those past problems is provided, then it just won't work). Theory can't trump reality.


  • #690
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Theory can't trump reality but if the theory is heavily flawed the theory can't happen in reality. The point being that for a complicated idea that is dependant on pragmatism there is no need to consider the pragmatic aspects to the theory if the ideal theory itself can be shown to be flawed. Sometimes this is a more convenient approach. It also helps negate biases caused by past events.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    sephir0th wrote: »
    In practice though, this only works if every piece of land worth conserving has a potential for profit - or if polluting that piece of land and destroying the habitat comes at a cost to the owner. If I owned a piece of land in the rainforest, under a free market, I would probably be better off selling the land to the highest corporate bidder or rent it out and give them free reign to exploit it.

    Note, this scenario is not some 'tragedy of the commons' - I'm just saying in the free market I'm free to maximize profits regardless of the impact to the environment - I don't think I should be free to do that.

    It only works if you can prove the harm and the "government science, the FDA or EPA," or whatever alphabet soup, backs it up. That's how Montsanto has gotten away with what it has gotten away with, because the "government" through its agencies gives it LEGITIMACY, and don't underestimate legitimacy when it comes to power.

    They turn around and say " we see no causality between our pesticides and our birth defects and cancer rates." FDA backs it up, it might go to court, but Montsanto is following the rules, the rules they paid for, the legitimacy they bought off the government, and they broke no law. So they continue to get away with what they get away with.

    Same with doctors who are under a gagging order not to discuss the dangers of fracking with their patients who are getting sick. So much for freedom of speech. The judges and the legislation back it up.


Advertisement