Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do you think people should be allowed to make

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wrong choices?
This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YWV discussion on Justin beiber.
I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.

What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:57:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think first and foremost that the right of a person to self ownership is extremely significant and it takes a majorly compelling justification to over ride that.

Secondly though, pretty much every experience in history will show that banning products and actions doesnt stop them from occurring, it just drives it underground and becomes more dangerous and draws people into more illegal things. If South Korea banned or severely restricted plastic surgery the problem doesn't go away. The problem is the vanity and superficially of people to pay to make themselves fake and banning a symptom of the problem does nothing to solve that. All that practically happens is that it's forced underground with shady doctors and becomes more dangerous. This applies to pretty much every self destructive behavior
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YWV discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:01:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:57:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think first and foremost that the right of a person to self ownership is extremely significant and it takes a majorly compelling justification to over ride that.

Secondly though, pretty much every experience in history will show that banning products and actions doesnt stop them from occurring, it just drives it underground and becomes more dangerous and draws people into more illegal things. If South Korea banned or severely restricted plastic surgery the problem doesn't go away. The problem is the vanity and superficiality of people to pay to make themselves fake and banning a symptom of the problem does nothing to solve that. All that practically happens is that it's forced underground with shady doctors and becomes more dangerous. This applies to pretty much every self destructive behavior

Fixed
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:05:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:57:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think first and foremost that the right of a person to self ownership is extremely significant and it takes a majorly compelling justification to over ride that.

Secondly though, pretty much every experience in history will show that banning products and actions doesnt stop them from occurring, it just drives it underground and becomes more dangerous and draws people into more illegal things. If South Korea banned or severely restricted plastic surgery the problem doesn't go away. The problem is the vanity and superficially of people to pay to make themselves fake and banning a symptom of the problem does nothing to solve that. All that practically happens is that it's forced underground with shady doctors and becomes more dangerous. This applies to pretty much every self destructive behavior

I am playing devils advocate here, but do you think that the regressive practices should be allowed to go on? What about the 'greayer good?'. What was your take on the step by Michelle Obama where she forced McDs to reduce the calorific value of fast food by a certain amount?
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:10:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:05:13 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:57:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think first and foremost that the right of a person to self ownership is extremely significant and it takes a majorly compelling justification to over ride that.

Secondly though, pretty much every experience in history will show that banning products and actions doesnt stop them from occurring, it just drives it underground and becomes more dangerous and draws people into more illegal things. If South Korea banned or severely restricted plastic surgery the problem doesn't go away. The problem is the vanity and superficially of people to pay to make themselves fake and banning a symptom of the problem does nothing to solve that. All that practically happens is that it's forced underground with shady doctors and becomes more dangerous. This applies to pretty much every self destructive behavior

I am playing devils advocate here, but do you think that the regressive practices should be allowed to go on? What about the 'greayer good?'.

I question the role of the government in countering these ills at all, but if it has to act acting in ways that address the actual problem rather than just a symptom is definitely more beneficial.

What was your take on the step by Michelle Obama where she forced McDs to reduce the calorific value of fast food by a certain amount?

I actually don't know the situation...if by "forced" you mean she asked them to do so and they did than I think it's good she used her influence to make things a bit healthier. If by forced you mean she threatened to get her husband to initiate some kind of government action/did get him to initiate an action then it's wrong
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YWV discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

Its like, 3 in the morning. Pardon me, sir.
I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:13:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YWV discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

Its like, 3 in the morning. Pardon me, sir.
I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

But how is a government action going to combat this false choice? It seems to me like the problem isn't the cream but rather the obsession with beauty

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:15:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:10:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:05:13 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:57:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think first and foremost that the right of a person to self ownership is extremely significant and it takes a majorly compelling justification to over ride that.

Secondly though, pretty much every experience in history will show that banning products and actions doesnt stop them from occurring, it just drives it underground and becomes more dangerous and draws people into more illegal things. If South Korea banned or severely restricted plastic surgery the problem doesn't go away. The problem is the vanity and superficially of people to pay to make themselves fake and banning a symptom of the problem does nothing to solve that. All that practically happens is that it's forced underground with shady doctors and becomes more dangerous. This applies to pretty much every self destructive behavior

I am playing devils advocate here, but do you think that the regressive practices should be allowed to go on? What about the 'greayer good?'.

I question the role of the government in countering these ills at all, but if it has to act acting in ways that address the actual problem rather than just a symptom is definitely more beneficial.

Educating the mass about the I'll effects of consuming a commodity, then? Like bow they do with drugs?

What was your take on the step by Michelle Obama where she forced McDs to reduce the calorific value of fast food by a certain amount?

I actually don't know the situation...if by "forced" you mean she asked them to do so and they did than I think it's good she used her influence to make things a bit healthier. If by forced you mean she threatened to get her husband to initiate some kind of government action/did get him to initiate an action then it's wrong

I'm not sure actually, it was the first one, I believe. But does the difference really matter? If anything, the second one is more effective is setting out what the first one aims to do.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:21:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:13:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YWV discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

Its like, 3 in the morning. Pardon me, sir.
I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

But how is a government action going to combat this false choice? It seems to me like the problem isn't the cream but rather the obsession with beauty

I am actually more concerned with whether the problem has a libertarian solution or not. The solutions I believe are effective would be government focus on 'educating' the mass, but again, that's not strictly libertarian. Plus it has a tendency to be misused in other situations, government brainwashing, in essense.

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:22:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:15:58 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:10:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:05:13 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:57:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think first and foremost that the right of a person to self ownership is extremely significant and it takes a majorly compelling justification to over ride that.

Secondly though, pretty much every experience in history will show that banning products and actions doesnt stop them from occurring, it just drives it underground and becomes more dangerous and draws people into more illegal things. If South Korea banned or severely restricted plastic surgery the problem doesn't go away. The problem is the vanity and superficially of people to pay to make themselves fake and banning a symptom of the problem does nothing to solve that. All that practically happens is that it's forced underground with shady doctors and becomes more dangerous. This applies to pretty much every self destructive behavior

I am playing devils advocate here, but do you think that the regressive practices should be allowed to go on? What about the 'greayer good?'.

I question the role of the government in countering these ills at all, but if it has to act acting in ways that address the actual problem rather than just a symptom is definitely more beneficial.

Educating the mass about the I'll effects of consuming a commodity, then? Like bow they do with drugs?

I personally don't take issue with those kinds of policies...although they are generally full of propaganda and such

What was your take on the step by Michelle Obama where she forced McDs to reduce the calorific value of fast food by a certain amount?

I actually don't know the situation...if by "forced" you mean she asked them to do so and they did than I think it's good she used her influence to make things a bit healthier. If by forced you mean she threatened to get her husband to initiate some kind of government action/did get him to initiate an action then it's wrong

I'm not sure actually, it was the first one, I believe. But does the difference really matter? If anything, the second one is more effective is setting out what the first one aims to do.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:25:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:21:08 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:13:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YWV discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

Its like, 3 in the morning. Pardon me, sir.
I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

But how is a government action going to combat this false choice? It seems to me like the problem isn't the cream but rather the obsession with beauty

I am actually more concerned with whether the problem has a libertarian solution or not. The solutions I believe are effective would be government focus on 'educating' the mass, but again, that's not strictly libertarian. Plus it has a tendency to be misused in other situations, government brainwashing, in essense.

I think there are some societal problems that are best/can only be solved by state action, the only problem is government incompetence or corruption. But most libertarians (me included) would concede that there are some things that can't be solved just by voluntary association, empowering the government to fix social ills would and does do far more harm than good


What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:27:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YWV discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

Its like, 3 in the morning. Pardon me, sir.

Forgiven and forgotten.

I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

That is a choice. You can choose to ignore what other people think. Unless someone actually forces you to do something, through coercion or violence there is no force. A load of people saying; "Hey Thaddeus jump of the bridge. You won't be cool unless you jump of the bridge. I won't invite you to my birthday party unless you jump off the bridge. If you jump off the bridge you can be my best friend" is not force. You have to make choices in life. Do I want these people who value one thing to like me or another group?
In the case of the fairness cream, there is a choice; to not look beautiful in the eyes of the society which values it. You may decide that it isn't worth it to not look beautiful, but to claim there is force there is foolish.

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people. Hitting them does.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:27:19 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YYW* discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

Its like, 3 in the morning. Pardon me, sir.

Forgiven and forgotten.

And yet... no one bothered to correct my username. Shame on you all. ;)

I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

That is a choice. You can choose to ignore what other people think. Unless someone actually forces you to do something, through violence* or the threat of violence* there is no coercion*. [YYW Agrees] A load of people saying; "Hey Thaddeus jump of the bridge. You won't be cool unless you jump of the bridge. I won't invite you to my birthday party unless you jump off the bridge. If you jump off the bridge you can be my best friend" is not coercion*. You have to make choices in life. Do I want these people who value one thing to like me or another group?
In the case of the fairness cream, there is a choice; to not look beautiful in the eyes of the society which values it. You may decide that it isn't worth it to not look beautiful, but to claim there is force there is foolish.

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

One of the things that the state does is attempt to make the costs of something high enough that it would be irrational to do things which the state does not want you to do. The state fails at this in many ways.

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people.

No, they facilitate people harming themselves. Even still though, I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Hitting them does.
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:48:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:27:19 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YWV discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

Its like, 3 in the morning. Pardon me, sir.

Forgiven and forgotten.

I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

That is a choice. You can choose to ignore what other people think. Unless someone actually forces you to do something, through coercion or violence there is no force. A load of people saying; "Hey Thaddeus jump of the bridge. You won't be cool unless you jump of the bridge. I won't invite you to my birthday party unless you jump off the bridge. If you jump off the bridge you can be my best friend" is not force. You have to make choices in life. Do I want these people who value one thing to like me or another group?
In the case of the fairness cream, there is a choice; to not look beautiful in the eyes of the society which values it. You may decide that it isn't worth it to not look beautiful, but to claim there is force there is foolish.

But that's not fair. You're saying that just because you know better, and you can make choices that are good, you shouldn't care about people that are making bad choices. There is a health crisis in America because of the McD market. Don't you feel that the government, given its duty is to serve the people, should take steps to counter that trigger?

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people. Hitting them does.

That's completely false. They do. Maybe even more than hitting people, because of the pravelance and acceptability of the fads. And ignorance.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:53:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:27:19 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:59:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:44:47 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrong choices?

Hell yes.

This was sparked by a Thaddeus vs YYW* discussion on Justin beiber.
Please re-read.

Its like, 3 in the morning. Pardon me, sir.

Forgiven and forgotten.

And yet... no one bothered to correct my username. Shame on you all. ;)

I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

That is a choice. You can choose to ignore what other people think. Unless someone actually forces you to do something, through violence* or the threat of violence* there is no coercion*. [YYW Agrees] A load of people saying; "Hey Thaddeus jump of the bridge. You won't be cool unless you jump of the bridge. I won't invite you to my birthday party unless you jump off the bridge. If you jump off the bridge you can be my best friend" is not coercion*. You have to make choices in life. Do I want these people who value one thing to like me or another group?
In the case of the fairness cream, there is a choice; to not look beautiful in the eyes of the society which values it. You may decide that it isn't worth it to not look beautiful, but to claim there is force there is foolish.

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

One of the things that the state does is attempt to make the costs of something high enough that it would be irrational to do things which the state does not want you to do. The state fails at this in many ways.

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people.

No, they facilitate people harming themselves. Even still though, I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Wat is dis i don even

Hitting them does.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:56:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:53:27 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Wat is dis i don even

Provide evidence that I'm wrong, and I'll concede the point. I have yet to see a single compelling argument that Justin Bieber is harmful.
Tsar of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:04:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You might be interested in "Nudge". It's a book about goods and services can be provided, while still maintaining choice, creates a situation in which one is less likely to choose the "unhealthy choice". For example, the placement of food either on a menu or shelves.

Of course, you'd still have to regulate the industry pretty heavily, which has problems itself.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:07:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:56:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:53:27 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Wat is dis i don even

Provide evidence that I'm wrong, and I'll concede the point. I have yet to see a single compelling argument that Justin Bieber is harmful.

1. He is harmful for the society! Now all the preteen girls want a prepubescent girlish boy as their boyfriend. DO you know the amount of pressure it puts on the preteen boys? I bet if you look at the statistics, the suicide rates among the prepubescent boys would have spiked up.

2. It sets up bad standard of music. Like suddenly, it is okay to make shotty music as long as you flip your hair in that irritating backflip and smile at the girls. It gives incentives to shitty singers to try out and you get Rebecca black.

its a viscious cycle.

3. He ruins the mornings of countless siblings of children who like Justin beiber. They are unproductive at work. It ruins the economy. Just look at the IIP numbers in America. And correlate them with the rise of Justin beiber. A negative correlation fosho.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:11:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 6:04:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You might be interested in "Nudge". It's a book about goods and services can be provided, while still maintaining choice, creates a situation in which one is less likely to choose the "unhealthy choice". For example, the placement of food either on a menu or shelves.

Of course, you'd still have to regulate the industry pretty heavily, which has problems itself.

Interesting. I actually have that book somewhere, I think. I should probably go throuh it. Sounds interesting. Don't remember the name, but the concept was pretty similar.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:17:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 6:07:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:56:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:53:27 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Wat is dis i don even

Provide evidence that I'm wrong, and I'll concede the point. I have yet to see a single compelling argument that Justin Bieber is harmful.

1. He is harmful for the society! Now all the preteen girls want a prepubescent girlish boy as their boyfriend. DO you know the amount of pressure it puts on the preteen boys? I bet if you look at the statistics, the suicide rates among the prepubescent boys would have spiked up.

Speculative, and even if you had the data to establish a correlation, I would only say post hoc ergo propter hoc.

2. It sets up bad standard of music. Like suddenly, it is okay to make shotty music as long as you flip your hair in that irritating backflip and smile at the girls. It gives incentives to shitty singers to try out and you get Rebecca black.

its a viscious cycle.

I agree that Rebecca Black is worthless and a terrible singer, and it is the case that Justin Beiber has a personal hand in her creation -but I have yet to hear any compelling evidence that bad music is harmful (societally or otherwise).

3. He ruins the mornings of countless siblings of children who like Justin beiber. They are unproductive at work. It ruins the economy. Just look at the IIP numbers in America. And correlate them with the rise of Justin beiber. A negative correlation fosho.

Lies.
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:28:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 6:17:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 6:07:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:56:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:53:27 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Wat is dis i don even

Provide evidence that I'm wrong, and I'll concede the point. I have yet to see a single compelling argument that Justin Bieber is harmful.

1. He is harmful for the society! Now all the preteen girls want a prepubescent girlish boy as their boyfriend. DO you know the amount of pressure it puts on the preteen boys? I bet if you look at the statistics, the suicide rates among the prepubescent boys would have spiked up.

Speculative, and even if you had the data to establish a correlation, I would only say post hoc ergo propter hoc.

2. It sets up bad standard of music. Like suddenly, it is okay to make shotty music as long as you flip your hair in that irritating backflip and smile at the girls. It gives incentives to shitty singers to try out and you get Rebecca black.

its a viscious cycle.

I agree that Rebecca Black is worthless and a terrible singer, and it is the case that Justin Beiber has a personal hand in her creation -but I have yet to hear any compelling evidence that bad music is harmful (societally or otherwise).

3. He ruins the mornings of countless siblings of children who like Justin beiber. They are unproductive at work. It ruins the economy. Just look at the IIP numbers in America. And correlate them with the rise of Justin beiber. A negative correlation fosho.

Lies.

Deny all you want YYW. This is the truth staring at you in the face. You don't want to believe it, fine! Just remember, ignorance is a choice.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:39:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:48:24 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:27:19 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:11:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
I am as capitalist as they get, but this is a pretty strong critique of libertarianism. For me at least.
What is your take on the fact that capitalism forces people to chose options that are downright regressive by conditioning a socio cultural construct that values a certain thing as opposed to others. The plastic surgery rate in south Korea, for example. The fairness creams market in India/ Pakistan. The McDonald's spurring the health crises, foe another.

Forces people to make free choices? I think you have a weird definition of force and choice.

Forces people to make choices that are bad for them. The concept that comes in here is that of a 'false choice'. Even of you have a choice of chosing to put on a fairness cream, and not putting on a fairness cream, if the society you live in values fairness over non fairness, and you want to look beautiful, you really have no choice. Ditto with plastic surgeries.

That is a choice. You can choose to ignore what other people think. Unless someone actually forces you to do something, through coercion or violence there is no force. A load of people saying; "Hey Thaddeus jump of the bridge. You won't be cool unless you jump of the bridge. I won't invite you to my birthday party unless you jump off the bridge. If you jump off the bridge you can be my best friend" is not force. You have to make choices in life. Do I want these people who value one thing to like me or another group?
In the case of the fairness cream, there is a choice; to not look beautiful in the eyes of the society which values it. You may decide that it isn't worth it to not look beautiful, but to claim there is force there is foolish.

But that's not fair. You're saying that just because you know better, and you can make choices that are good, you shouldn't care about people that are making bad choices. There is a health crisis in America because of the McD market. Don't you feel that the government, given its duty is to serve the people, should take steps to counter that trigger?

No I'm saying that I don't necessarily know better, and won't make choices for other people.

What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people. Hitting them does.

That's completely false. They do. Maybe even more than hitting people, because of the pravelance and acceptability of the fads. And ignorance.

My statement there was to indicate that I don't think making people feel bad counts as harm. Its a choice.
You don't have much choice about getting punched in the face.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:43:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

One of the things that the state does is attempt to make the costs of something high enough that it would be irrational to do things which the state does not want you to do. The state fails at this in many ways.

Yes. And I agree that the state could do this well in an idealized magic wand scenario. However, the state incentive structure is not conducive to ever producing this ideal scenario and better at producing negative outcomes.

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people.

No, they facilitate people harming themselves. Even still though, I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Factual. But giving someone a hammer allows them hurt to themselves to a much greater extent, but doesn't make you responsible if they decide bash their face in. And also agreed on the second point.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:47:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:50:18 PM, Cermank wrote:
Okay the state sucks. Agreed. What would be the libertarian solution to this problem?

There isn't a problem. You just like different things to other people and can't see how some people value short term things over long term things despite you probably doing it in other areas yourself.
Example; fatty foods --> short term taste payoff, long term health drawbacks.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:48:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 6:28:23 PM, Cermank wrote:
Deny all you want YYW. This is the truth staring at you in the face. You don't want to believe it, fine! Just remember, ignorance is a choice.

I so very much enjoy defending Justin Bieber... it's the most clever form of trolling, really because (being a gay guy) people believe me when I tell them that i'm a belieber, and secondly because it causes so much outrage when I do. But really, I like his music, but as a person he's kind of a fuckwit.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 6:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 6:43:34 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

One of the things that the state does is attempt to make the costs of something high enough that it would be irrational to do things which the state does not want you to do. The state fails at this in many ways.

Yes. And I agree that the state could do this well in an idealized magic wand scenario. However, the state incentive structure is not conducive to ever producing this ideal scenario and better at producing negative outcomes.

Nothing on this earth is perfect, other than Justin Bieber's hair -meaning that whereas the state may attempt to do many things (like disincentivize undesirable behavior) it can do that only to a degree of success that people rationally weigh the costs and benefits of a given action AND where the consequences for bad actions are such that they actually have a deterrent effect. That said, if you're about to make an anarchist case for how the people of the world will come together and live in harmony (i.e. make good decisions for themselves and others) in the absence of the rule of law, I'm equally apt to dismiss that as an over-idealized scenario as well. But, you didn't go that far, so I'll await your further clarification.

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people.

No, they facilitate people harming themselves. Even still though, I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Factual. But giving someone a hammer allows them hurt to themselves to a much greater extent, but doesn't make you responsible if they decide bash their face in. And also agreed on the second point.

If you give a murderer a gun who then uses the gun to kill another person, are you responsible for the death of the person he killed? No. Why? There is no evidence in that scenario to suggest that the murderer wouldn't have killed his victim by some other means had you not facilitated his harming others. Perhaps he would have found a hammer, a rock, a flensing knife or a trebuchet (ok... maybe he wouldn't use a trebuchet... lol).
Tsar of DDO
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 7:10:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 6:56:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 6:43:34 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

One of the things that the state does is attempt to make the costs of something high enough that it would be irrational to do things which the state does not want you to do. The state fails at this in many ways.

Yes. And I agree that the state could do this well in an idealized magic wand scenario. However, the state incentive structure is not conducive to ever producing this ideal scenario and better at producing negative outcomes.

Nothing on this earth is perfect, other than Justin Bieber's hair -meaning that whereas the state may attempt to do many things (like disincentivize undesirable behavior) it can do that only to a degree of success that people rationally weigh the costs and benefits of a given action AND where the consequences for bad actions are such that they actually have a deterrent effect. That said, if you're about to make an anarchist case for how the people of the world will come together and live in harmony (i.e. make good decisions for themselves and others) in the absence of the rule of law, I'm equally apt to dismiss that as an over-idealized scenario as well. But, you didn't go that far, so I'll await your further clarification.

No, I'm not making any anarchist claims here, merely saying that as it stands, that any state action attempting to affect social behaviours through incentives is more likely to do harm than good, due to unintended consequences, or be completely ineffective. It can work, but doesn't often.

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people.

No, they facilitate people harming themselves. Even still though, I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Factual. But giving someone a hammer allows them hurt to themselves to a much greater extent, but doesn't make you responsible if they decide bash their face in. And also agreed on the second point.

If you give a murderer a gun who then uses the gun to kill another person, are you responsible for the death of the person he killed? No.

Agreed.

Why? There is no evidence in that scenario to suggest that the murderer wouldn't have killed his victim by some other means had you not facilitated his harming others. Perhaps he would have found a hammer, a rock, a flensing knife or a trebuchet (ok... maybe he wouldn't use a trebuchet... lol).

He might of. Don't pretend to know him like I do. Just because you don't get him.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 7:38:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 7:10:18 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 6:56:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 6:43:34 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 5:46:51 PM, YYW wrote:
What if the choices people make are bad? Should the state have a role in curbing those?

One of the things that the state does is attempt to make the costs of something high enough that it would be irrational to do things which the state does not want you to do. The state fails at this in many ways.

Yes. And I agree that the state could do this well in an idealized magic wand scenario. However, the state incentive structure is not conducive to ever producing this ideal scenario and better at producing negative outcomes.

Nothing on this earth is perfect, other than Justin Bieber's hair -meaning that whereas the state may attempt to do many things (like disincentivize undesirable behavior) it can do that only to a degree of success that people rationally weigh the costs and benefits of a given action AND where the consequences for bad actions are such that they actually have a deterrent effect. That said, if you're about to make an anarchist case for how the people of the world will come together and live in harmony (i.e. make good decisions for themselves and others) in the absence of the rule of law, I'm equally apt to dismiss that as an over-idealized scenario as well. But, you didn't go that far, so I'll await your further clarification.

No, I'm not making any anarchist claims here, merely saying that as it stands, that any state action attempting to affect social behaviours through incentives is more likely to do harm than good, due to unintended consequences, or be completely ineffective. It can work, but doesn't often.

That depends on how you calculate benefits and harms. How easy it would be to underscore the benefits and over-inflate costs if one was trying to criticize some given course of action... In concept we don't disagree, but we very likely do disagree on the extent to which costs are costs and benefits are benefits and how both stand relative to one another.

Nope, unless they are directly harming someone else. But you already knew my views :)

What if they are harming them? What if they are perpetruating a societal fad that is harming everybody?

Societal fads do not directly harm people.

No, they facilitate people harming themselves. Even still though, I don't think Justin Bieber is harmful.

Factual. But giving someone a hammer allows them hurt to themselves to a much greater extent, but doesn't make you responsible if they decide bash their face in. And also agreed on the second point.

If you give a murderer a gun who then uses the gun to kill another person, are you responsible for the death of the person he killed? No.

Agreed.

I love it when a plan comes together!

but...

Why? There is no evidence in that scenario to suggest that the murderer wouldn't have killed his victim by some other means had you not facilitated his harming others. Perhaps he would have found a hammer, a rock, a flensing knife or a trebuchet (ok... maybe he wouldn't use a trebuchet... lol).

He might of. Don't pretend to know him like I do. Just because you don't get him.

As long as it's clear that it cannot be established that the person who provided the murderer with a gun is in no way causally linked to the murder then I'll leave it at that. And indeed it is possible that the murderer could have chosen to use a trebuchet. He might be a medieval weapons enthusiast.... I'm not pretending to know one way or another, lol.
Tsar of DDO