4 ms·

Spot on. I am so surprised you've been downvoted to hell. Sometimes it seems basic economics is an alien concept.

Spivak 6y ago
Because you're applying a definition of freedom so absolutely and narrowly that it ceases to be useful. Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. If your definition of freedom can't explain why voluntary enslavement makes people less free then it's useless.
- subhobroto 6y ago
  > And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. I can assure you that not everyone is getting their preferred outcome. That's why the term "prisoners" instead of "willing teammates" are used here. > Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. As a worker you always can leave whenever you choose. Past. Present. Future. That does not mean you get to keep your job doing that. Slaves too had the freedom to leave whenever they chose unless they were in chains. The only issue was the enforcement of certain labor contracts that have since been deemed illegal. To clarify, the slaves were treated as property just like you now treat your pets, in this day and age. If your pet was to flee you would capture it and offer rewards for its re-capture. The concept of it is still alive in this day and age. It's just not phrased in those specific terms. Your mention of voluntary enslavement indicates you are well aware of what I mentioned and how modern society has just devised new means of enslavement while being compliant with anti-slavery regulations. > Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Absolutely not. Making something illegal absolutely does not shield you against harm. Making something legal absolutely does not shield you against harm either. If you exercised your right of freedom of speech in San Francisco and serenaded Trump, you will see what I mean. There is no magic cloak that protects you from "illegal" things. If someone shot you with a machine gun - the former being a criminal activity with various levels of prosecution and the later being literally illegal in most practical sense in the U.S. - you are still shot and injured - illegal or not. You are still hurt or dead. The only concern at that point is whether the perpetrator is going to be first caught, and then prosecuted under the laws that make their activity liable for prosecution. If they run away, tough luck - illegal and all that. If you are a terrorist on the run, assault is no longer off the table. Saddam and Osama can speak a few words about that. Any kind of weapons are illegal in Mexico, so it assault. Yet people die of both in Mexico. Fact remains you are still hurt or dead irregardless of the agility of it. You dont have the ability to arise from the ashes even if the method of your injury/mortality was illegal. Physics and biology don't consult the roster of human idiosyncrasies. They follow the rules of science, illegal or not. The moon rotated around the earth well before, during it was illegal to do so and it continues to.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mountainboot 6y ago
    So we shouldn't have laws against assault because people still die of assault?
    - subhobroto 6y ago
      We were having a conversation about how passing regulations against surveillance at work is meaningless because just like all regulations, majority of companies will find ways to work around it while complying with regulations. When it became illegal to directly discriminate against race, employers found out ways to indirectly discriminate against race by putting in requirements for schooling and degrees that are just not in the reach of certain races and ethnic groups. ... but let's indulge you for a moment. I can pass all the kinds of laws against assault I want all day and you can come along and pay enough money to redefine what assault really means. Every regulation I pass is a restraint against my own freedom. I can chop my foot off as much as I want in an attempt to save my head but if someone really wanted my head, they will have it no matter how hard I try to stop it. Regulation does not help the common man at all and the rich already have help to get what they want. Regulation or no regulation.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        So in your view regulation doesn’t stop anyone from doing what they want to do or we’re doing anyway. Doesn’t that imply that they can’t limit your freedom then? If regulations are totally ineffective why give them any mind at all?
        subhobroto 6y ago
        > If regulations are totally ineffective why give them any mind at all? Because each regulation is a fly constantly nagging at you. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to do what you were doing and if you concentrate enough, you don't even feel the flies but they are still there buzzing around and nagging at you. It's annoying as hell mate. What's one regulation that really changed your life? Hold on, we are not done yet - now think of one regulation, without which you really could have, really, changed your life. With those two now, let's talk.

Because you're applying a definition of freedom so absolutely and narrowly that it ceases to be useful. Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. If your definition of freedom can't explain why voluntary enslavement makes people less free then it's useless.

subhobroto 6y ago
> And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. I can assure you that not everyone is getting their preferred outcome. That's why the term "prisoners" instead of "willing teammates" are used here. > Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. As a worker you always can leave whenever you choose. Past. Present. Future. That does not mean you get to keep your job doing that. Slaves too had the freedom to leave whenever they chose unless they were in chains. The only issue was the enforcement of certain labor contracts that have since been deemed illegal. To clarify, the slaves were treated as property just like you now treat your pets, in this day and age. If your pet was to flee you would capture it and offer rewards for its re-capture. The concept of it is still alive in this day and age. It's just not phrased in those specific terms. Your mention of voluntary enslavement indicates you are well aware of what I mentioned and how modern society has just devised new means of enslavement while being compliant with anti-slavery regulations. > Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Absolutely not. Making something illegal absolutely does not shield you against harm. Making something legal absolutely does not shield you against harm either. If you exercised your right of freedom of speech in San Francisco and serenaded Trump, you will see what I mean. There is no magic cloak that protects you from "illegal" things. If someone shot you with a machine gun - the former being a criminal activity with various levels of prosecution and the later being literally illegal in most practical sense in the U.S. - you are still shot and injured - illegal or not. You are still hurt or dead. The only concern at that point is whether the perpetrator is going to be first caught, and then prosecuted under the laws that make their activity liable for prosecution. If they run away, tough luck - illegal and all that. If you are a terrorist on the run, assault is no longer off the table. Saddam and Osama can speak a few words about that. Any kind of weapons are illegal in Mexico, so it assault. Yet people die of both in Mexico. Fact remains you are still hurt or dead irregardless of the agility of it. You dont have the ability to arise from the ashes even if the method of your injury/mortality was illegal. Physics and biology don't consult the roster of human idiosyncrasies. They follow the rules of science, illegal or not. The moon rotated around the earth well before, during it was illegal to do so and it continues to.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mountainboot 6y ago
  So we shouldn't have laws against assault because people still die of assault?
  - subhobroto 6y ago
    We were having a conversation about how passing regulations against surveillance at work is meaningless because just like all regulations, majority of companies will find ways to work around it while complying with regulations. When it became illegal to directly discriminate against race, employers found out ways to indirectly discriminate against race by putting in requirements for schooling and degrees that are just not in the reach of certain races and ethnic groups. ... but let's indulge you for a moment. I can pass all the kinds of laws against assault I want all day and you can come along and pay enough money to redefine what assault really means. Every regulation I pass is a restraint against my own freedom. I can chop my foot off as much as I want in an attempt to save my head but if someone really wanted my head, they will have it no matter how hard I try to stop it. Regulation does not help the common man at all and the rich already have help to get what they want. Regulation or no regulation.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      So in your view regulation doesn’t stop anyone from doing what they want to do or we’re doing anyway. Doesn’t that imply that they can’t limit your freedom then? If regulations are totally ineffective why give them any mind at all?
      - subhobroto 6y ago
        > If regulations are totally ineffective why give them any mind at all? Because each regulation is a fly constantly nagging at you. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to do what you were doing and if you concentrate enough, you don't even feel the flies but they are still there buzzing around and nagging at you. It's annoying as hell mate. What's one regulation that really changed your life? Hold on, we are not done yet - now think of one regulation, without which you really could have, really, changed your life. With those two now, let's talk.