3 ms·

> Why shouldn’t people be able to take risks they’re comfortable with? Because when enough of these nimrods makes the wrong decision at the same time, you get

> Why shouldn’t people be able to take risks they’re comfortable with? Because when enough of these nimrods makes the wrong decision at the same time, you get catastrophic failure and the rest of society is left holding the bag. They then go whining to the government which, in turn, enacts regulations to keep these things from happening again.

tptacek 9y ago
If we're just recapitulating the statism-vs-anarcho-capitalism argument, we can probably put a bow on this part of the thread and everyone agree to disagree.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  I don't think I'm arguing against rugged individualism as an ideology, moreso the belief that the choices we make as individuals don't affect the people around us, which seems to be the repeating mantra from anarcho-capitalists.
malvosenior 9y ago
You can go to Vegas right now and blow your life savings. Should that be illegal too? We need to stop the mollycoddling and let people make their own decisions (and yes not bail them out if those decisions turn out to be wrong).
- tptacek 9y ago
  You can indeed do that. But very few people do, because when you try to mortgage your house to bet your life's savings at a craps table, your spouse refuses to sign the paperwork, because everyone knows that for a working class family, spending $10,000 at a casino means you have a problem. The same is not true of investments, which can be very persuasively marketed to normal people without gambling problems. Which is why the SEC cares so much about how securities are marketed and promoted, and why you can sell stock in virtually anything as long as you (1) register and (2) publish audited financials documenting how crazy your business idea is.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    If the “problem” is marketing then the solution is counter-marketing, not regulation. Ideas should compete against each other and not be forced with the threat of violence (the state). You’re right in that we fundamentally disagree so won’t go anywhere here. I appreciate you arguing in good (enough) faith though.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  > you get catastrophic failure and the rest of society is left holding the bag. You didn't respond to what I said. When enough people make a large mistake, the effects go beyond just the individuals. At that point, it's no longer a "personal choice," it's damaging to the whole.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    I did: “and yes not bail them out if those decisions turn out to be wrong” Of course any action at scale will have impact beyond the individual. I do not believe the state (or anyone else) can determine what’s best for everyone. Such a thing is not possible and instead is used as cover to remove personal freedom.
    - orthecreedence 9y ago
      Ah, I'm sorry, I missed that part of your response. In that case, your point is taken (I disagree, but that's fine).

tptacek 9y ago

If we're just recapitulating the statism-vs-anarcho-capitalism argument, we can probably put a bow on this part of the thread and everyone agree to disagree.

orthecreedence 9y ago
I don't think I'm arguing against rugged individualism as an ideology, moreso the belief that the choices we make as individuals don't affect the people around us, which seems to be the repeating mantra from anarcho-capitalists.

malvosenior 9y ago

You can go to Vegas right now and blow your life savings. Should that be illegal too? We need to stop the mollycoddling and let people make their own decisions (and yes not bail them out if those decisions turn out to be wrong).

tptacek 9y ago
You can indeed do that. But very few people do, because when you try to mortgage your house to bet your life's savings at a craps table, your spouse refuses to sign the paperwork, because everyone knows that for a working class family, spending $10,000 at a casino means you have a problem. The same is not true of investments, which can be very persuasively marketed to normal people without gambling problems. Which is why the SEC cares so much about how securities are marketed and promoted, and why you can sell stock in virtually anything as long as you (1) register and (2) publish audited financials documenting how crazy your business idea is.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  If the “problem” is marketing then the solution is counter-marketing, not regulation. Ideas should compete against each other and not be forced with the threat of violence (the state). You’re right in that we fundamentally disagree so won’t go anywhere here. I appreciate you arguing in good (enough) faith though.
orthecreedence 9y ago
> you get catastrophic failure and the rest of society is left holding the bag. You didn't respond to what I said. When enough people make a large mistake, the effects go beyond just the individuals. At that point, it's no longer a "personal choice," it's damaging to the whole.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  I did: “and yes not bail them out if those decisions turn out to be wrong” Of course any action at scale will have impact beyond the individual. I do not believe the state (or anyone else) can determine what’s best for everyone. Such a thing is not possible and instead is used as cover to remove personal freedom.
  - orthecreedence 9y ago
    Ah, I'm sorry, I missed that part of your response. In that case, your point is taken (I disagree, but that's fine).