8 ms·

This is the mantra of all government regulation (which is really just a legislated grab at power): “I know it’s bad for you, but it will be better for others.

This is the mantra of all government regulation (which is really just a legislated grab at power): “I know it’s bad for you, but it will be better for others. And because we think that’s more important, you have no choice.” An objectively free society is always better than your subjectively “healthy” society.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
You vote, I vote, we all vote, and whatever policy wins becomes the law. And it looks like this is going to become law. The people have spoken. If one takes issue, plenty of other states to choose from to better experience one’s personal idea of “freedom”.
- dnautics 7y ago
  You vote, I vote, we all vote, and sometimes the lawmakers kick out yellow people because there's too many of them immigrating into this country. There are plenty of other countries to choose from to better experience your idea of social justice.
nosianu 7y ago
The only "free" society is you alone in a large area. In any other place, with other humans nearby, you will not be "free". And this definition of "Freedom" only looks at the impact from other humans, totally ignoring the restrictions the world itself imposes on you (but to human psychology those don't matter nearly as much as the will of other people imposed on yourself). This sounds cliche, and it is, but for whatever reason I feel kind of forced to reemphasize the obvious in response to your self-centered-universe-outlook comment. In a human society, the alternative to government is rule of the strongest. That's how we got nobles and kings, later the great capitalist tycoons and their private police and armies. > An objectively free society That does not mean anything. Well, it means you are trying to shove your world-view down everybody else's throat while shutting out any discussion and arguments that you dislike.
- Andhurati 7y ago
  >In a human society, the alternative to government is rule of the strongest. That's how we got nobles and kings, later the great capitalist tycoons and their private police and armies If you feel that that's the case then you must realize that what stopped this status quoue wasn't legislation but industrialization and guns. Legislation is always after the fact.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Guns were around for a few hundred years before this alleged democratizing effect. Also, of note, is that guns were invented in China thousands of years ago and it has been a monarchy or dictatorship since then.
    - Andhurati 7y ago
      Steam engines have been around since the 1st century, but like guns, they weren't going to be as important as they could be without all the advancements in ideology, planning and sciences that resulted in industrialization. Which brings me back to my point, the current status of civilization is due much less to legislation than people say it is.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        If you specifically mean the existence of an elected group of people writing the laws matters less than people say it does, we agree. But if you say that the systematic codification of rules (i.e., laws) matters less than people say it does, we disagree completely. Laws literally defined every major civilization back to the dawn of recorded human history. For more modern examples, CA's employee rights laws are the reason that SV happened in SV rather than New York, Boston, Chicago, or Detroit--all cities with larger scientific and industrial bases than SF or LA. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act literally made the internet as it exists today possible; without it Youtube, Twitch, Facebook, Twitter, and even Amazon and Google couldn't exist as they do today.
r00fus 7y ago
Hmm - or phrased more accurately, your group's (aggregated) choice is less valuable than others' (aggregated) choice. How many people do you think go through the process of signing up for Uber simply to arbitrage the 5-10 minutes gained on HOV lanes? Compare vs. Uber/Lyfts actual use case - to displace taxis and public transport while under-paying it's drivers.
CJefferson 7y ago
How free do you want? Free enough I can employ anyone at any wage, to do any job? Free enough I can employ children and send them down mines? Free enough I can just come around and take your house?
KirinDave 7y ago
> "I know it’s bad for you, but it will be better for others. And because we think that’s more important, you have no choice.” If you don't like this logic, why do you support the OPs use of the inverse proposition: "I know it’s bad for all of you, but it will be better for me. And because I think that’s more important, I'd like everyone to agree without directly justifying it.” Even if you believe in a society of objective freedom, there are multiple senses of freedom. There are "freedoms from" as well as "freedoms to", and you seem to be carefully and convexly limiting the definition of "objectively free society" fits exactly cognitive cognitive volume you want, without regard to how other people might define that concept.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  > If you don't like this logic, why do you support the OPs use of the inverse proposition: It's really simple, because the inverse doesn't involve legislation, where an individual is forced to do something at risk of life and limb.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    But importantly it relies on legislation. It relies on the existence of very specific market conditions that are held in place by the state. It then supposes that these artificial conditions we cal the workplace shouldn't change if they impact the author, who is rich, to benefit the "desperate" (a larger and poorer cohort of people, I read from the OP's post). Legislation is there either way. It is involved in each case. And as employment (often dangerous) is required for living in the US, it seems pretty weird to view this structural change that only mildly inconvenienced some of the most egregious users of the very broad "contractor" status in existing law, I can't quite work out why this is important.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

You vote, I vote, we all vote, and whatever policy wins becomes the law. And it looks like this is going to become law. The people have spoken. If one takes issue, plenty of other states to choose from to better experience one’s personal idea of “freedom”.

dnautics 7y ago
You vote, I vote, we all vote, and sometimes the lawmakers kick out yellow people because there's too many of them immigrating into this country. There are plenty of other countries to choose from to better experience your idea of social justice.

nosianu 7y ago

The only "free" society is you alone in a large area. In any other place, with other humans nearby, you will not be "free". And this definition of "Freedom" only looks at the impact from other humans, totally ignoring the restrictions the world itself imposes on you (but to human psychology those don't matter nearly as much as the will of other people imposed on yourself). This sounds cliche, and it is, but for whatever reason I feel kind of forced to reemphasize the obvious in response to your self-centered-universe-outlook comment. In a human society, the alternative to government is rule of the strongest. That's how we got nobles and kings, later the great capitalist tycoons and their private police and armies. > An objectively free society That does not mean anything. Well, it means you are trying to shove your world-view down everybody else's throat while shutting out any discussion and arguments that you dislike.

Andhurati 7y ago
>In a human society, the alternative to government is rule of the strongest. That's how we got nobles and kings, later the great capitalist tycoons and their private police and armies If you feel that that's the case then you must realize that what stopped this status quoue wasn't legislation but industrialization and guns. Legislation is always after the fact.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Guns were around for a few hundred years before this alleged democratizing effect. Also, of note, is that guns were invented in China thousands of years ago and it has been a monarchy or dictatorship since then.
  - Andhurati 7y ago
    Steam engines have been around since the 1st century, but like guns, they weren't going to be as important as they could be without all the advancements in ideology, planning and sciences that resulted in industrialization. Which brings me back to my point, the current status of civilization is due much less to legislation than people say it is.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      If you specifically mean the existence of an elected group of people writing the laws matters less than people say it does, we agree. But if you say that the systematic codification of rules (i.e., laws) matters less than people say it does, we disagree completely. Laws literally defined every major civilization back to the dawn of recorded human history. For more modern examples, CA's employee rights laws are the reason that SV happened in SV rather than New York, Boston, Chicago, or Detroit--all cities with larger scientific and industrial bases than SF or LA. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act literally made the internet as it exists today possible; without it Youtube, Twitch, Facebook, Twitter, and even Amazon and Google couldn't exist as they do today.

r00fus 7y ago

Hmm - or phrased more accurately, your group's (aggregated) choice is less valuable than others' (aggregated) choice. How many people do you think go through the process of signing up for Uber simply to arbitrage the 5-10 minutes gained on HOV lanes? Compare vs. Uber/Lyfts actual use case - to displace taxis and public transport while under-paying it's drivers.

CJefferson 7y ago

How free do you want? Free enough I can employ anyone at any wage, to do any job? Free enough I can employ children and send them down mines? Free enough I can just come around and take your house?

KirinDave 7y ago

> "I know it’s bad for you, but it will be better for others. And because we think that’s more important, you have no choice.” If you don't like this logic, why do you support the OPs use of the inverse proposition: "I know it’s bad for all of you, but it will be better for me. And because I think that’s more important, I'd like everyone to agree without directly justifying it.” Even if you believe in a society of objective freedom, there are multiple senses of freedom. There are "freedoms from" as well as "freedoms to", and you seem to be carefully and convexly limiting the definition of "objectively free society" fits exactly cognitive cognitive volume you want, without regard to how other people might define that concept.

dev_dull 7y ago
> If you don't like this logic, why do you support the OPs use of the inverse proposition: It's really simple, because the inverse doesn't involve legislation, where an individual is forced to do something at risk of life and limb.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  But importantly it relies on legislation. It relies on the existence of very specific market conditions that are held in place by the state. It then supposes that these artificial conditions we cal the workplace shouldn't change if they impact the author, who is rich, to benefit the "desperate" (a larger and poorer cohort of people, I read from the OP's post). Legislation is there either way. It is involved in each case. And as employment (often dangerous) is required for living in the US, it seems pretty weird to view this structural change that only mildly inconvenienced some of the most egregious users of the very broad "contractor" status in existing law, I can't quite work out why this is important.