4 ms·

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

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.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        What ensures the parties involved are free? Many of these issues being discussed deal with consequences experienced by one party that were never disclosed by the other. Information asymmetry makes such contracts un-free and thus the legal framework should permit nullification and redress.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        > What ensures the parties involved are free? The prohibition by the government of the physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom. > the legal framework should permit nullification and redress It does already. Contracts have disclosure clauses all the time.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Contracts have disclosure clauses all the time. To bring it back to the article at hand, did social media and other tech companies disclose the negative effects of the use of their products in their EULA? The prohibition by the government of the use of physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom. If a distributor of an addiction-forming substance engenders an addiction in customers, is that not utilizing physical force to deprive them of their freedom? Especially if the addictive properties were not disclosed ahead of time.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        > negative effects What do you mean "negative"? Why do you consider captivating people negative? Do you think this view is universally held? I think people should be able to distribute any substances or provide any services "as is", without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Negative, in this context, can constitute enough for whatever grievance that enough users are unhappy with their customer experience. To take this discussion from the normative to the practical, I do not believe the appropriate government role here would be to act as sole regulator but rather aid those users who are aggrieved by these businesses in more precise actions, such as filing amicus briefs in class action suits by users who feel that their captivation has proven to be personally detrimental. Or perhaps for the FTC to provide guidance and support to consumer watchdog groups to form and issue PSAs on said detrimental effects. Empowering individuals and independent groups to come together. These supportive, assistive, incentive-based actions would not be utilizing the state’s monopoly on violence, and thus does not violate your views on the proper place of the government. without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force. Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs rooted in civil society that can advise consumers on potential negative effects, to protect against information asymmetry, and so users will understand the full freedoms they have at their disposal for redress if a business happens to provide poor, injurious service.
  - claudiulodro 5y ago
    - We already regulate interaction between people (e.g. you can't throw a rock at someone when you disagree with them). Even if it's paternalistic, surely you're not proposing we should do away with those regulations. - The internet is a common shared environment, so its maintenance should be regulated like other environments to manage externalities. These points seem consistent with your philosophy and also permit regulation of social media companies.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      If it wasn't clear, I'm suggesting regulating nonviolent interaction is paternalistic, as is weaseling around it by expanding the definition of violence. I agree we shouldn't let people physically destroy internet infrastructure. I don't think this is controversial. I don't think we should regulate how people peacefully interact.
      - dTal 5y ago
        Why is "violence" your boundary? Most people agree that lots of things can be "bad" besides violence. There's a pretty broad consensus on that. You're going to need some pretty strong arguments to justify legalizing theft and fraud.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm not trying to justify legalizing theft and fraud - these are most generally justified by property rights, which are somewhat tangential here. Neither of them set a precedent for the government intervening in honest interactions between people. Lots of things are widely considered "bad", that doesn't mean it wouldn't be tyrannical to make them illegal.
        dTal 5y ago
        You didn't answer. Why do you draw the line there? What's so special about violence that it deserves special attention from the state, while other bad things don't? I see you've also added property rights now, which are a totally separate category from violence. Why these things in particular?

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.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      What ensures the parties involved are free? Many of these issues being discussed deal with consequences experienced by one party that were never disclosed by the other. Information asymmetry makes such contracts un-free and thus the legal framework should permit nullification and redress.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        > What ensures the parties involved are free? The prohibition by the government of the physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom. > the legal framework should permit nullification and redress It does already. Contracts have disclosure clauses all the time.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Contracts have disclosure clauses all the time. To bring it back to the article at hand, did social media and other tech companies disclose the negative effects of the use of their products in their EULA? The prohibition by the government of the use of physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom. If a distributor of an addiction-forming substance engenders an addiction in customers, is that not utilizing physical force to deprive them of their freedom? Especially if the addictive properties were not disclosed ahead of time.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        > negative effects What do you mean "negative"? Why do you consider captivating people negative? Do you think this view is universally held? I think people should be able to distribute any substances or provide any services "as is", without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Negative, in this context, can constitute enough for whatever grievance that enough users are unhappy with their customer experience. To take this discussion from the normative to the practical, I do not believe the appropriate government role here would be to act as sole regulator but rather aid those users who are aggrieved by these businesses in more precise actions, such as filing amicus briefs in class action suits by users who feel that their captivation has proven to be personally detrimental. Or perhaps for the FTC to provide guidance and support to consumer watchdog groups to form and issue PSAs on said detrimental effects. Empowering individuals and independent groups to come together. These supportive, assistive, incentive-based actions would not be utilizing the state’s monopoly on violence, and thus does not violate your views on the proper place of the government. without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force. Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs rooted in civil society that can advise consumers on potential negative effects, to protect against information asymmetry, and so users will understand the full freedoms they have at their disposal for redress if a business happens to provide poor, injurious service.
- claudiulodro 5y ago
  - We already regulate interaction between people (e.g. you can't throw a rock at someone when you disagree with them). Even if it's paternalistic, surely you're not proposing we should do away with those regulations. - The internet is a common shared environment, so its maintenance should be regulated like other environments to manage externalities. These points seem consistent with your philosophy and also permit regulation of social media companies.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    If it wasn't clear, I'm suggesting regulating nonviolent interaction is paternalistic, as is weaseling around it by expanding the definition of violence. I agree we shouldn't let people physically destroy internet infrastructure. I don't think this is controversial. I don't think we should regulate how people peacefully interact.
    - dTal 5y ago
      Why is "violence" your boundary? Most people agree that lots of things can be "bad" besides violence. There's a pretty broad consensus on that. You're going to need some pretty strong arguments to justify legalizing theft and fraud.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm not trying to justify legalizing theft and fraud - these are most generally justified by property rights, which are somewhat tangential here. Neither of them set a precedent for the government intervening in honest interactions between people. Lots of things are widely considered "bad", that doesn't mean it wouldn't be tyrannical to make them illegal.
        dTal 5y ago
        You didn't answer. Why do you draw the line there? What's so special about violence that it deserves special attention from the state, while other bad things don't? I see you've also added property rights now, which are a totally separate category from violence. Why these things in particular?