4 ms·

> 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 sh

> 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.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  > These supportive, assistive, incentive-based actions All of these actions are done with the threat of fines for noncompliance, and the threat of imprisonment for noncompliance with the fines. They are also financed by taxation, which is involuntary and redistributive by nature. > Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs If these NGOs do not occur naturally, then there's clearly not enough demand for them. This is supported by your proposal to use authority to force them into existence. I'm opposing the use of authority to intervene in peaceful interaction between citizens. Instead of forcing the issue, why not just be content with the fact that most people are not interested in forming voluntary collectives, even when it is in their interest, and in spite of the fact that they are free and entitled to, and allow them to suffer the consequences?
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    > All of these actions are done with the threat of fines for noncompliance, and the threat of imprisonment for noncompliance with the fines. How is filing an amicus brief or funding third party groups in danger of anything like that? There’s no regulation involved. > If these NGOs do not occur naturally, then there's clearly not enough demand for them. They already do, e.g. https://www.ofsms.org/ https://www.ofsms.org/ > why not just be content with the fact that most people are not interested in forming voluntary collectives Why are you insistent on claiming the nonexistence of information asymmetry? > They are also financed by taxation, which is involuntary and redistributive by nature. Ah if we go down that route of normative woolgathering then we can next call property theft and even land (or at least rent) theft, and continue this endless wheel of rhetorical Samsara.

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.

thegrimmest 5y ago
> These supportive, assistive, incentive-based actions All of these actions are done with the threat of fines for noncompliance, and the threat of imprisonment for noncompliance with the fines. They are also financed by taxation, which is involuntary and redistributive by nature. > Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs If these NGOs do not occur naturally, then there's clearly not enough demand for them. This is supported by your proposal to use authority to force them into existence. I'm opposing the use of authority to intervene in peaceful interaction between citizens. Instead of forcing the issue, why not just be content with the fact that most people are not interested in forming voluntary collectives, even when it is in their interest, and in spite of the fact that they are free and entitled to, and allow them to suffer the consequences?
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  > All of these actions are done with the threat of fines for noncompliance, and the threat of imprisonment for noncompliance with the fines. How is filing an amicus brief or funding third party groups in danger of anything like that? There’s no regulation involved. > If these NGOs do not occur naturally, then there's clearly not enough demand for them. They already do, e.g. https://www.ofsms.org/ https://www.ofsms.org/ > why not just be content with the fact that most people are not interested in forming voluntary collectives Why are you insistent on claiming the nonexistence of information asymmetry? > They are also financed by taxation, which is involuntary and redistributive by nature. Ah if we go down that route of normative woolgathering then we can next call property theft and even land (or at least rent) theft, and continue this endless wheel of rhetorical Samsara.