Atlas Shrugged

Permabear · 18-09-2014 10:44AM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 18-09-2014 10:45AM

I've changed my tune. It has been tried in real life. Worked out as expected.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 11:14AM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 18-09-2014 11:23AM

Not so sure such a state is sustainable but it would be interesting to see how they would get on. Like the Galts Gulch thing in Chile I'd expect.

5uspect · 18-09-2014 11:24AM

Were I an economist, I would have used a better word. I would simply refer to rational and irrational consumers as regular and irregular perhaps.

Of course I don't. Historically the situation is much different however. Cigarette company executives have testified that their product isn't addictive. Their advertising campaigns have messaged the notion that smoking is good for you.

So which is better? The pack of cigarettes with the 'SMOKING KILLS" and the nasty picture or the pack with the doctor giving the thumbs up? How do consumers decide as individuals when complex scientific research on health needs to get funded somehow? The cigarette companies cannot be trusted, the Government will just **** all over everything?

Permabear · 18-09-2014 11:37AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 11:46AM

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 18-09-2014 11:50AM

A psychiatrist will tell you that there is something wrong with such a person. The story is that their addiction is a mental illness over which they have no control, it being an alleged brain disease exerting deterministic control over their actions at a given time. Just one more confusing aspect to the popular usage of the term 'rational'!

Naz_st · 18-09-2014 12:00PM

This illustrates for me one of the fuzzy areas of Libertarian thinking though. What you say is true, but it seems to me it's only true because of state intervention and regulation? In the absence of such, why would there be "Smoking Kills" on cigarette packs and a ban on smoking advertisement?

Permabear · 18-09-2014 12:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Naz_st · 18-09-2014 12:41PM

I take your point, and it reinforces the general Libertarian point that "some regulation" leads to yet more regulation and a host of other unintended consequences. Which is why you can go from the simple idea of "Government should regulate to add warning messages to Cigarettes", which sounds innocuous and good in theory, to the reality of Quangos and bans and taxes and criminal prosecutions and so on and so on.

However, the counterpoint also seems true. The idea that because regulation leads to inefficiency, bureaucratic layers, barriers to entry, and ever more regulation, that not regulating in the first place is a better idea, and in this case there would follow some form of self-regulation or market-based regulation. Again, in theory I can follow the logic. But in practice I suspect, in this case for example, you would not have warning messages on cigarettes or any of the host of educational initiatives that have led people to understand the dangers of smoking.

Not sure where I stand on this one, I find it a genuinely interesting issue.

Sort of reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote:
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is"

Permabear · 18-09-2014 12:52PM

This post has been deleted.

marienbad · 18-09-2014 01:49PM

So as I asked you already , what would you do in regard to cigarettes in a Randian world ?

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 02:10PM

No they do not remove all the danger from nicotine addiction. Nicotine by itself is still pretty bad for you. Which the nicotine industry is trying to hide once again, just like they initially did when they found out inhaling smoke is bad decades before it became common knowledge, and worked hard to repress THAT information.

But that was probably also caused be regulations or something, because a completely unfettered industry cannot do anything that is not in everyone's best interest: the tragedy of the commons does not exist for most libertarians.

In fact, in stead of making governmental regulations, we should just sort it out by good ole libertarian-approved lawsuits, which are a completely different way of penalizing an industry financially than fines because of freedom!

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 03:08PM

The term "free markets" appears regularly in economic and political debate, with 99% of people seemingly having few or no comprehension difficulties. When the BBC publishes a story entitled "Cuba expands free-market reforms," most readers will immediately grasp that it deals with reducing the role of the state in the Cuban economy and giving greater freedom to private enterprise. Similarly, when we read a headline such as "Socialist MEPs attack McCreevy over free market policies," few of us will have difficulty grasping what the socialist MEPs are complaining about.[/QUOTE]
You're attempting to sidestep the main argument of my post here, ignoring nearly all of it, and cherry-picking part of a sentence, to put it out of context, and change what was being debated - here is my post again, since it's a few pages back now:

Your examples here of using the term 'free markets', with the definition "reducing the role of the state in the [] economy and giving greater freedom to private enterprise", does nothing to contest my point, that arguing against a policy by using the term 'free markets', is either meaningless or a circular-argument/begging-the-question.

Deciding when we want government to 'reduce it's role in the economy' and 'give greater freedom to private enterprise', is again a question that has to be decided as a part of policymaking - so when you use 'free markets' (with that definition) as an argument against a policy (i.e. as part of an argument for trying to decide when 'government should reduce its role' etc.), then you're again making a circular argument and/or begging the question.

A: "For policy 'X', should government reduce its role and give greater freedom to private enterprise?"
B: "Yes, because 'free markets'. (i.e. Yes, because government should reduce its role and give greater freedom to private enterprise)"

Permabear · 18-09-2014 03:56PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 04:09PM

This post has been deleted.

marienbad · 18-09-2014 04:11PM

So are you saying cigarettes sugar and perhaps heroin should be on sale to all and sundry including 10 year olds ?

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 04:17PM

..aaand we go off the deep end into pretend-land.

I never said we should. I merely point out that if you let businesses do what they want, they tend to do things such as hide important information about the effects of some products or ditch responsibility for the results of their actions. The efforts of the tobacco industry to suppress the results of studies into the effects of smoking are a really good example of this.

But like I said, in Libertarianism, the tragedy of the commons does not seem to exist.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 04:29PM

This post has been deleted.

Karl Stein · 18-09-2014 04:32PM

No but 'the state' (human beings) should try to reduce the harm it causes.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 04:36PM

This post has been deleted.

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 04:38PM

You seem to require me to feel businesses are completely evil in order to deal with my objections, and to completely ignore the one about the tragedy of the commons.

Remind me: what is it again that prevents businesses from engaging in practices that yield them financial gains in the short term, even if it is against the general best interest and even their OWN best interest in the long term?

Permabear · 18-09-2014 04:43PM

This post has been deleted.

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 04:44PM

The state could reasonably require products to state clearly how much of it is in a product if it can cause health problems - like we do with sugar.

What we do not do yet with e-cigs, and should, is to stop companies from marketing them as harmless, healthy options. it should clearly state that they are best used as aids to get rid of nicotine addiction altogether.

But of course companies will just do that of their own free will any moment now. Any... moment....

Karl Stein · 18-09-2014 04:45PM

If they follow the public health multi-pronged model used to drastically reduce the harm caused by tobacco then there's every chance they will reduce the harm sugar causes.

With diabetes, caused by lifestyle, on the rise you can be sure that the medical profession will begin to push 'the state' (human beings) to take action.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 04:49PM

This post has been deleted.

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 04:52PM

So if there had been even less regulation of the banks this would not have happened?

How odd: it seems that the banks did indeed keep lending irresponsibly, even though it was well known that the results would be bad for everyone in the long run. There was little or no regulation for sub-prime mortgages.

Then, when they collapsed, they did something even more reprehensible and scared the government into bailing them out. This worked, because the government was too afraid to let them fail: they feared the economic consequences of the vacuum that would follow.

Your solution: less regulation! Because regulation = a kind of government interference = being able to take risks because you can count on a bailout!

But the banks knew no such thing: a lot of banks failed globally, and one in ireland got nationalized and pretty much ceased to exist as a company.

Once again the libertarian train derails the moment we investigate just how much enlightened self-interest can be expected of a for-profit organization... tragedy of the commons, anyone?

20Cent · 18-09-2014 04:53PM

Instead of pointing out the obvious problems with the current system it would be useful if a libertarian were to tell us how issues such as harmful products and drugs would be delt with in a libertarian system?

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 04:56PM

...and all this would be solved if only we could do away with those pesky calorie signs, and we could expect these figures to dramatically improve!

Just like the persistence of road-deaths shows that seatbelts are just useless.

Atlas Shrugged

Comments