4 ms·

"One thing that always bothers me is how we have this myth of personal responsibility that supposes an individual is equipped to defend their own interests agai

"One thing that always bothers me is how we have this myth of personal responsibility that supposes an individual is equipped to defend their own interests against a multinational corporation on their own." 1. Our wiring isn't perfect, but who is better equipped to defend a person's interests than the individual themself? Serious question. 2. I don't think the "power" and coerciveness of multinational corporations is anywhere near that of government, which people bashing corporations usually want to make larger and more powerful. As Diedre McCloskey says, what happens if you are morally opposed to some new fighter jet or corporate subsidy, and unilaterally decide to pay fewer taxes because of it? The answer is you go jail. What happens if you choose Samsung or an Iphone? Nothing. 3. It's not like there is just one monolithic corporation. There are many, and they have various interests, capabilities and incentives. Usually they're competing with each other. Further, in time, many corporations correctly view these irrationalities as market opportunities and actively work on helping consumers combat them. E.g. see Acorns, Wealthfront, or hundreds of apps that help people use their phones less.

enraged_camel 8y ago
>>Our hardware isn't perfect, but who is better equipped to defend your own interests than the individual? Organizations who have similar levels of resources and expertise as those who are infringing upon the individual’s interests, obviously. Otherwise it ends up being a David vs Goliath situation.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"1. Our wiring isn't perfect, but who is better equipped to defend a person's interests than the individual themself? Serious question." Someone who actually knows something about the topic in question? It is highly in the interests of any person to have both a plentiful and safe food supply, and safe, breathable air and safe, drinkable water. Pesticides constantly straddle this line; how much pollution is acceptable for food production, but still leaving the air and water safe? Do you honestly expect any random person to be able to make the correct choice in that situation? No. That's why we have experts in that field which study the effects of these chemicals, and the impact they have on the environment, and come to the conclusion of what's safe or not. Another similar issue: One's actions do not exist in a vacuum. There's a recent story of some farmers spraying a certain herbicide to protect their crops from pigweed. However, not every farmer in the area is using it, or the herbicide resistant crops. The thing about spraying is that it goes in the air, and tends not to recognize property lines. The herbicide kills the crops on the neighboring farms. So while the original farmer who sprayed acted in their individual interest, they most definitely did not act in the interest of society in general, and clearly not in the interest of their neighbors. "I don't think the "power" and coerciveness of multinational corporations is anywhere near that of government, which people bashing corporations usually want to make larger and more powerful." No, we just want government to actually act in people's interests. "As Diedre McCloskey says, what happens if you are morally opposed to some new fighter jet or corporate subsidy, and unilaterally decide to pay fewer taxes because of it? The answer is you go jail." Yes, you broke the law, and so you must face the consequences. And unless you're Al Capone, you're not going to jail. Please stop parroting this ridiculous argument. "What happens if you choose Samsung or an Iphone? " What happens if you stop paying the balance on your Samsung phone because you switched? "Further, in time, many corporations correctly view these irrationalities as market opportunities and actively work on helping consumers combat them." I have huge doubts that many of them do this, and I have huge doubts that they are effective in this.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Corporations and governments are both capable of screwing you over in different ways and often overlap. Corporations made the arms that shot the students of Kent State University and the government failed to protect people poisoned by pollution of Superfund sites. Hold them both accountable or they will be used by nefarious entities in the other as enablers for a workaround. That said persistently refusing like many conscientious objectors will land you in jail though. It isn't a ridiculous argument but the literal truth. It also isn't a very effective tactic of protest but more a matter of fanaticism of principle.
notabee 8y ago
No one has the time, energy, or capacity to become expert in all domains within a complex civilization that could materially affect them. You are confusing "better equipped" with "having the most substantial interest". A person has the most substantial interest in their own safety and benefit, but that in no way implies that they will be the best equipped to attain that in all cases, or even understand how to. By all means, that person should seek out such knowledge, but it will never be as comprehensive as the accumulated wisdom of experts, or even compete with a motivated group of non-experts. You can advocate for personal agency and also still realize that a person standing alone is likely to get screwed over.

enraged_camel 8y ago

>>Our hardware isn't perfect, but who is better equipped to defend your own interests than the individual? Organizations who have similar levels of resources and expertise as those who are infringing upon the individual’s interests, obviously. Otherwise it ends up being a David vs Goliath situation.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"1. Our wiring isn't perfect, but who is better equipped to defend a person's interests than the individual themself? Serious question." Someone who actually knows something about the topic in question? It is highly in the interests of any person to have both a plentiful and safe food supply, and safe, breathable air and safe, drinkable water. Pesticides constantly straddle this line; how much pollution is acceptable for food production, but still leaving the air and water safe? Do you honestly expect any random person to be able to make the correct choice in that situation? No. That's why we have experts in that field which study the effects of these chemicals, and the impact they have on the environment, and come to the conclusion of what's safe or not. Another similar issue: One's actions do not exist in a vacuum. There's a recent story of some farmers spraying a certain herbicide to protect their crops from pigweed. However, not every farmer in the area is using it, or the herbicide resistant crops. The thing about spraying is that it goes in the air, and tends not to recognize property lines. The herbicide kills the crops on the neighboring farms. So while the original farmer who sprayed acted in their individual interest, they most definitely did not act in the interest of society in general, and clearly not in the interest of their neighbors. "I don't think the "power" and coerciveness of multinational corporations is anywhere near that of government, which people bashing corporations usually want to make larger and more powerful." No, we just want government to actually act in people's interests. "As Diedre McCloskey says, what happens if you are morally opposed to some new fighter jet or corporate subsidy, and unilaterally decide to pay fewer taxes because of it? The answer is you go jail." Yes, you broke the law, and so you must face the consequences. And unless you're Al Capone, you're not going to jail. Please stop parroting this ridiculous argument. "What happens if you choose Samsung or an Iphone? " What happens if you stop paying the balance on your Samsung phone because you switched? "Further, in time, many corporations correctly view these irrationalities as market opportunities and actively work on helping consumers combat them." I have huge doubts that many of them do this, and I have huge doubts that they are effective in this.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Corporations and governments are both capable of screwing you over in different ways and often overlap. Corporations made the arms that shot the students of Kent State University and the government failed to protect people poisoned by pollution of Superfund sites. Hold them both accountable or they will be used by nefarious entities in the other as enablers for a workaround. That said persistently refusing like many conscientious objectors will land you in jail though. It isn't a ridiculous argument but the literal truth. It also isn't a very effective tactic of protest but more a matter of fanaticism of principle.

notabee 8y ago

No one has the time, energy, or capacity to become expert in all domains within a complex civilization that could materially affect them. You are confusing "better equipped" with "having the most substantial interest". A person has the most substantial interest in their own safety and benefit, but that in no way implies that they will be the best equipped to attain that in all cases, or even understand how to. By all means, that person should seek out such knowledge, but it will never be as comprehensive as the accumulated wisdom of experts, or even compete with a motivated group of non-experts. You can advocate for personal agency and also still realize that a person standing alone is likely to get screwed over.