3 ms·

Well we gotta call it something, kinda like communism and democracy. It means a lot of things to different people, but those things still vaguely refer to simil

Well we gotta call it something, kinda like communism and democracy. It means a lot of things to different people, but those things still vaguely refer to similar ideas. I tend not to support stringent definitions on things ("The US is a republic, not a democracy") because basically it ends up being word games. If you look at economics, the idea is that people are rational agents. At least the orthodox idea which people are not told to question. From there you get all sorts of efficiency ideas that are the support for that government intervention idea of free markets. It goes free thinking -> efficient decisions -> government shouldn't intervene. So of course if people aren't so free thinking, doesn't that change something? The issue with advertising is that we have indeed agreed that certain interventions are legit. Externalities are another one of those things they mention in economics, and you'll find all sorts of models for how to deal with them. There are in fact loads of regulations, all grounded in the idea that even rational agents sometimes cause things to happen that we don't want, and should be fixed by intervention. Typically to do with information problems. So then if actually we think government should intervene in some situations, why not in this one? Maybe it's just a matter of time, as evidence builds up. I suppose there's already controls for things like addictive gambling.

jasode 6y ago
>So of course if people aren't so free thinking, doesn't that change something? [...] So then if actually we think government should intervene in some situations, why not in this one? Since the majority of your reply is about justifying more positive government intervention, I've done a poor job explaining what I was talking about. I already agree with government intervention to limit bad effects of advertising. That's not what my comment was about; instead, I was critiquing your rhetoric. E.g. the following type of statement : "If people are not truly free thinking, how can we have a free market?!?" The above statement has a nice poetic symmetry but doesn't actually advance the discussion in a productive way. Let me try more rhetorical examples and hopefully you'll see the same pattern: Proposal: Facebook should open its social graph as API so users can be free to choose their own 3rd-party client and not be locked in a walled garden. But if users are not so free thinking, how can there be a free choice to choose their own social client? Proposal: People should be able to freely choose which state or house they want to live in. But if citizens are not aware of hidden influences, and are not perfectly rational agents, and disadvantaged with information asymmetry, can there truly be a free choice to pick a home? Proposal: People should be free to choose their spouse. But... [same pattern]... because people don't know hidden life influences that had predetermined their eventual mate selection, etc. What I'm saying is that yes, we can be flexible with definition of "free" -- but that just means we're going down a rabbit hole of philosophical word games. I contend this isn't productive discussion. If we want to recommend more positive government intervention, we can do that without the "free isn't truly free" philosophy.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  I guess you are getting at the whole Marxist false consciousness idea? Because while false consciousness is one of those convenient thought-ending "explanations" that seem to explain everything and nothing, we actually do have evidence that people can't do rational very well. So how do we square that circle? > If we want to recommend more positive government intervention My instinct is normally against intervention, so I do feel a bit quesy about finding problems all over the place that need fixes that are potentially themselves wrong. It's an issue for sure. I don't know how to resolve it either, just looking for people's perspectives.
legulere 6y ago
The problem is that those words are really bad for describing things. “Communism” can mean among other things authoritarian regime, UdSSR-Style socialism, China-style state capitalism, or the idea of an utopia with no social classes, no money and no state. By conflating those things you bring down also the level of the discussion.

jasode 6y ago

>So of course if people aren't so free thinking, doesn't that change something? [...] So then if actually we think government should intervene in some situations, why not in this one? Since the majority of your reply is about justifying more positive government intervention, I've done a poor job explaining what I was talking about. I already agree with government intervention to limit bad effects of advertising. That's not what my comment was about; instead, I was critiquing your rhetoric. E.g. the following type of statement : "If people are not truly free thinking, how can we have a free market?!?" The above statement has a nice poetic symmetry but doesn't actually advance the discussion in a productive way. Let me try more rhetorical examples and hopefully you'll see the same pattern: Proposal: Facebook should open its social graph as API so users can be free to choose their own 3rd-party client and not be locked in a walled garden. But if users are not so free thinking, how can there be a free choice to choose their own social client? Proposal: People should be able to freely choose which state or house they want to live in. But if citizens are not aware of hidden influences, and are not perfectly rational agents, and disadvantaged with information asymmetry, can there truly be a free choice to pick a home? Proposal: People should be free to choose their spouse. But... [same pattern]... because people don't know hidden life influences that had predetermined their eventual mate selection, etc. What I'm saying is that yes, we can be flexible with definition of "free" -- but that just means we're going down a rabbit hole of philosophical word games. I contend this isn't productive discussion. If we want to recommend more positive government intervention, we can do that without the "free isn't truly free" philosophy.

lordnacho 6y ago
I guess you are getting at the whole Marxist false consciousness idea? Because while false consciousness is one of those convenient thought-ending "explanations" that seem to explain everything and nothing, we actually do have evidence that people can't do rational very well. So how do we square that circle? > If we want to recommend more positive government intervention My instinct is normally against intervention, so I do feel a bit quesy about finding problems all over the place that need fixes that are potentially themselves wrong. It's an issue for sure. I don't know how to resolve it either, just looking for people's perspectives.

legulere 6y ago

The problem is that those words are really bad for describing things. “Communism” can mean among other things authoritarian regime, UdSSR-Style socialism, China-style state capitalism, or the idea of an utopia with no social classes, no money and no state. By conflating those things you bring down also the level of the discussion.