5 ms·

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 pr

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.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I agree that the maintenance of the common physical environment we live in should be regulated, but that's not what we're talking about here is it? We're talking about regulating interaction between people, which is inherently paternalistic.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        We’re talking about the concept of total economic freedom in general, which would inevitably lead to negative externalities of any kind, including to the physical environment, not merely interactions between people.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm not strictly in favour of total economic freedom and wasn't the one to bring it up. Namely I am in favour of regulating the physical commons - rights of way, air, water, etc. that we all must physically interact with. I'm against the paternalistic regulation of how free people should peacefully interact with each other, with the view to steer outcomes to some random idea of good.
- dTal 5y ago
  Ethical nihilism is no basis for public policy. Your argument successfully justifies legal murder, for instance. Who are we to say that it's wrong?
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    If someone consents to be murdered, who are we indeed to stop them? My argument doesn't justify non-consensual murder at all however.
    - dTal 5y ago
      It certainly does justify it. And literally everything else. It's an argument against laws of any kind. After all, "good, desirable or natural" are not real. We have no framework to rank desirability of outcome, according to you. The only reasonable way forward is tolerance of the full diversity of belief, right? Including the belief that murder is okay.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        Well, if one person doesn't want to be murdered and another wants to murder someone, and these people are equal, then we have a conflict. We should tolerate the full diversity of belief, but we should not tolerate infringement on anyone's liberty.

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.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I agree that the maintenance of the common physical environment we live in should be regulated, but that's not what we're talking about here is it? We're talking about regulating interaction between people, which is inherently paternalistic.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        We’re talking about the concept of total economic freedom in general, which would inevitably lead to negative externalities of any kind, including to the physical environment, not merely interactions between people.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm not strictly in favour of total economic freedom and wasn't the one to bring it up. Namely I am in favour of regulating the physical commons - rights of way, air, water, etc. that we all must physically interact with. I'm against the paternalistic regulation of how free people should peacefully interact with each other, with the view to steer outcomes to some random idea of good.
dTal 5y ago
Ethical nihilism is no basis for public policy. Your argument successfully justifies legal murder, for instance. Who are we to say that it's wrong?
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  If someone consents to be murdered, who are we indeed to stop them? My argument doesn't justify non-consensual murder at all however.
  - dTal 5y ago
    It certainly does justify it. And literally everything else. It's an argument against laws of any kind. After all, "good, desirable or natural" are not real. We have no framework to rank desirability of outcome, according to you. The only reasonable way forward is tolerance of the full diversity of belief, right? Including the belief that murder is okay.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      Well, if one person doesn't want to be murdered and another wants to murder someone, and these people are equal, then we have a conflict. We should tolerate the full diversity of belief, but we should not tolerate infringement on anyone's liberty.