7 ms·

You're acting like corporations aren't enacting control over large populations right now either. Everything the market does as a byproduct of maximizing profit

You're acting like corporations aren't enacting control over large populations right now either. Everything the market does as a byproduct of maximizing profits is fine, but all other intervention with provably better mental and physical health outcomes is authoritarian. Did I get that right?

thegrimmest 5y ago
> provably better First we have to all agree on what this means, which I'm quite sure is impossible. Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. That is exactly the basis for my opposition to authoritarian paternalism. Also I disagree that corporations are "enacting control" - they are merely exerting influence. There is a world of difference.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  >Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. I think we're going to have to disagree for good here. I much prefer living in a country where radically free markets are substantially toned down.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I'm sure you do. I'm questioning the basis for your imposing this view onto others who would disagree.
    - sascha_sl 5y ago
      This presupposed the "voluntary" part of capitalism, which I find objectionable, but I didn't want to go on a tangent for too long. FWIW, I wouldn't want to prescribe a particular habit of eating healthy or not binging media, but I also don't consider the current status quo neutral. It is true that it is simply a product of profit incentives, but that doesn't mean the outcomes are good, desirable or natural.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        My point is that "good, desirable or natural" are not real. They are not concrete things that we can derive from observations about the world. They are akin to religions beliefs. Reasonable people can hold opposing views, and there is no oracle to divine the one truth. Given this situation, the only reasonable way forward seems to be tolerance of the full diversity of belief, and refrain from imposing one's own beliefs onto others.
        sascha_sl 5y ago
        This is why I wanted to avoid this discussion. Because philosophically, I really don't disagree with this statement, but the discussion has pivoted past the important part, where we talk about whether total economic freedom is itself ideology (or "an imposition of belief"). It doesn't exist in a vaccum. It is a way to maximize one particular aspect of freedom, but at the expense of other aspects. You will always have to make this trade off somewhere, paradox of tolerance and all, and I don't think this is the one we should make.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm curious how you would categorize total economic freedom in any sense an "imposition of belief". It is simply absence of any imposition into the economic realm. What other aspects are being sacrificed in order to maximise this aspect? I'm not sure the paradox of tolerance is a statement of fact.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        What if total economic freedom resulted in the reduction of other freedoms
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        Which other freedoms are you referring to? How would they be reduced by total economic freedom? I don't see how economic freedom would lead directly to violence.
- andersonvom 5y ago
  > Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. In some ideal world, where both parties of an exchange hold equal bargaining power, the "free" market might be "voluntary". This is certainly not the current state of affairs, though. Being able to "choose" between a crappy option and a horrible option is anything but voluntary: "you can choose to work for me for little to no money... or you can choose to starve to death. it's your 'free' choice." The very premise of what would make a free market efficient in the real world simply doesn't exist, but we keep trying to convince ourselves that it does because we don't know or aren't used to anything different.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Being able to choose between horrible options is exactly the definition of freedom. Believe it or not many people would choose free destitution over pampered slavery. It is exactly the ability to make this choice, at the most extreme level, that should be respected. To take an maximal example: you should be able to sell your kidneys to fuel your heroin habit, for no other reason than because no one can claim more ownership over them than you. To protect people, against their will, from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy is fundamentally paternalistic. The goal isn't efficiency, but the primacy of agency and consent.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      What is wrong with paternalism?
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        The authoritarian and condescending nature of it.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Why is paternalism within the family not authoritarian or condescending?

thegrimmest 5y ago

> provably better First we have to all agree on what this means, which I'm quite sure is impossible. Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. That is exactly the basis for my opposition to authoritarian paternalism. Also I disagree that corporations are "enacting control" - they are merely exerting influence. There is a world of difference.

sascha_sl 5y ago
>Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. I think we're going to have to disagree for good here. I much prefer living in a country where radically free markets are substantially toned down.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I'm sure you do. I'm questioning the basis for your imposing this view onto others who would disagree.
  - sascha_sl 5y ago
    This presupposed the "voluntary" part of capitalism, which I find objectionable, but I didn't want to go on a tangent for too long. FWIW, I wouldn't want to prescribe a particular habit of eating healthy or not binging media, but I also don't consider the current status quo neutral. It is true that it is simply a product of profit incentives, but that doesn't mean the outcomes are good, desirable or natural.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      My point is that "good, desirable or natural" are not real. They are not concrete things that we can derive from observations about the world. They are akin to religions beliefs. Reasonable people can hold opposing views, and there is no oracle to divine the one truth. Given this situation, the only reasonable way forward seems to be tolerance of the full diversity of belief, and refrain from imposing one's own beliefs onto others.
      - sascha_sl 5y ago
        This is why I wanted to avoid this discussion. Because philosophically, I really don't disagree with this statement, but the discussion has pivoted past the important part, where we talk about whether total economic freedom is itself ideology (or "an imposition of belief"). It doesn't exist in a vaccum. It is a way to maximize one particular aspect of freedom, but at the expense of other aspects. You will always have to make this trade off somewhere, paradox of tolerance and all, and I don't think this is the one we should make.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm curious how you would categorize total economic freedom in any sense an "imposition of belief". It is simply absence of any imposition into the economic realm. What other aspects are being sacrificed in order to maximise this aspect? I'm not sure the paradox of tolerance is a statement of fact.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        What if total economic freedom resulted in the reduction of other freedoms
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        Which other freedoms are you referring to? How would they be reduced by total economic freedom? I don't see how economic freedom would lead directly to violence.
andersonvom 5y ago
> Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. In some ideal world, where both parties of an exchange hold equal bargaining power, the "free" market might be "voluntary". This is certainly not the current state of affairs, though. Being able to "choose" between a crappy option and a horrible option is anything but voluntary: "you can choose to work for me for little to no money... or you can choose to starve to death. it's your 'free' choice." The very premise of what would make a free market efficient in the real world simply doesn't exist, but we keep trying to convince ourselves that it does because we don't know or aren't used to anything different.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Being able to choose between horrible options is exactly the definition of freedom. Believe it or not many people would choose free destitution over pampered slavery. It is exactly the ability to make this choice, at the most extreme level, that should be respected. To take an maximal example: you should be able to sell your kidneys to fuel your heroin habit, for no other reason than because no one can claim more ownership over them than you. To protect people, against their will, from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy is fundamentally paternalistic. The goal isn't efficiency, but the primacy of agency and consent.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    What is wrong with paternalism?
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      The authoritarian and condescending nature of it.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        Why is paternalism within the family not authoritarian or condescending?