4 ms·

...Nothing you wrote refuted the point that "making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives." > Every business? A mom and pop grocer

...Nothing you wrote refuted the point that "making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives." > Every business? A mom and pop grocery store is a business. A old-fashioned diner that serves actual cooked food instead of microwaved pre-processed junk is a business. Are they public dangers? Yes... I explicitly addressed this point already. It doesn't appear that you've actually read my entire post, despite its brevity.

pdonis 3y ago
> Nothing you wrote refuted the point that "making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives." Sure I did: I pointed out that making a profit by creating wealth is doing public good. Try living without all the wealth that businesses create (and have created over centuries) and see how you like it. > I explicitly addressed this point already. I don't see where. You mention businesses that are too small or inefficient to do much harm, but you never mention businesses creating positive value at all.
- digging 3y ago
  > I pointed out that making a profit by creating wealth is doing public good. It's not. A rich person getting richer doesn't make society healthier or happier. Wealth can be used for public good, though. > You mention businesses that are too small or inefficient to do much harm, but you never mention businesses creating positive value at all. Because the positive value created by a business is, actually, not relevant to the discussion. Did you miss my fire analogy? Really doesn't seem like you grasped my points. Could be my fault if you can show me where my meaning was unclear. I'm not anti-fire. At the same time, I think that we as a society should prevent people from running around starting fires whenever and wherever they want, because it's dangerous. (Yes, by force if necessary. I'm not ignorant of the logical conclusion of laws.) Fortunately, we already do this, because everyone agrees: fire indeed hot. You, on the other hand, are not acknowledging the danger of profit-seeking behavior. Again: that's my entire fucking point, so please address it.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > A rich person getting richer Has nothing at all to do with what most businesses do. Most businesses are small businesses and their owners are not rich. And most businesses create wealth directly, instead of buying government favors to help get wealth transferred from other people to them. > Because the positive value created by a business is, actually, not relevant to the discussion. Yes, it is. "Business" does not just mean large corporations, and it does not just have negative effects. Focusing on the negative effects and ignoring the benefits is foolish. > Did you miss my fire analogy? No, I just grasp the fact (which apparently you don't) that you are focused only on the negatives and not the positives, so your analysis is flawed; it doesn't support your claims. That's just as true of your fire analogy, where you only focused on the dangers of fire (and the additional dangers we create by using fire), not the benefits we gain from fire. > You, on the other hand, are not acknowledging the danger of profit-seeking behavior Sure I am. I'm just balancing it against the benefits, which you are not. You are saying that everything businesses do can be described by analogy with "fire indeed hot". Which is even less of an apt description of businesses than it is of fires.
    - digging 3y ago
      I am literally just asking you to discuss how we can deal with the dangers of profit-seeking behavior, and you're talking about something else. Every one of your comments is off-topic.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > please address it Address what? The problem I described? Sure, that's simple: stop the government from favoring large corporations with regulations and money printing. Make it so the only way businesses can make a profit is by creating wealth. (IIRC pg advocated for much the same thing in one of his essays a while back.) Will that address the problem you describe? I have no idea, because the way you describe businesses, it sounds like you're saying we should just shut them all down as public dangers.
    - digging 3y ago
      > it sounds like you're saying we should just shut them all down as public dangers. However, that's not what I'm saying.

pdonis 3y ago

> Nothing you wrote refuted the point that "making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives." Sure I did: I pointed out that making a profit by creating wealth is doing public good. Try living without all the wealth that businesses create (and have created over centuries) and see how you like it. > I explicitly addressed this point already. I don't see where. You mention businesses that are too small or inefficient to do much harm, but you never mention businesses creating positive value at all.

digging 3y ago
> I pointed out that making a profit by creating wealth is doing public good. It's not. A rich person getting richer doesn't make society healthier or happier. Wealth can be used for public good, though. > You mention businesses that are too small or inefficient to do much harm, but you never mention businesses creating positive value at all. Because the positive value created by a business is, actually, not relevant to the discussion. Did you miss my fire analogy? Really doesn't seem like you grasped my points. Could be my fault if you can show me where my meaning was unclear. I'm not anti-fire. At the same time, I think that we as a society should prevent people from running around starting fires whenever and wherever they want, because it's dangerous. (Yes, by force if necessary. I'm not ignorant of the logical conclusion of laws.) Fortunately, we already do this, because everyone agrees: fire indeed hot. You, on the other hand, are not acknowledging the danger of profit-seeking behavior. Again: that's my entire fucking point, so please address it.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > A rich person getting richer Has nothing at all to do with what most businesses do. Most businesses are small businesses and their owners are not rich. And most businesses create wealth directly, instead of buying government favors to help get wealth transferred from other people to them. > Because the positive value created by a business is, actually, not relevant to the discussion. Yes, it is. "Business" does not just mean large corporations, and it does not just have negative effects. Focusing on the negative effects and ignoring the benefits is foolish. > Did you miss my fire analogy? No, I just grasp the fact (which apparently you don't) that you are focused only on the negatives and not the positives, so your analysis is flawed; it doesn't support your claims. That's just as true of your fire analogy, where you only focused on the dangers of fire (and the additional dangers we create by using fire), not the benefits we gain from fire. > You, on the other hand, are not acknowledging the danger of profit-seeking behavior Sure I am. I'm just balancing it against the benefits, which you are not. You are saying that everything businesses do can be described by analogy with "fire indeed hot". Which is even less of an apt description of businesses than it is of fires.
  - digging 3y ago
    I am literally just asking you to discuss how we can deal with the dangers of profit-seeking behavior, and you're talking about something else. Every one of your comments is off-topic.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > please address it Address what? The problem I described? Sure, that's simple: stop the government from favoring large corporations with regulations and money printing. Make it so the only way businesses can make a profit is by creating wealth. (IIRC pg advocated for much the same thing in one of his essays a while back.) Will that address the problem you describe? I have no idea, because the way you describe businesses, it sounds like you're saying we should just shut them all down as public dangers.
  - digging 3y ago
    > it sounds like you're saying we should just shut them all down as public dangers. However, that's not what I'm saying.