3 ms·
I dislike this simplistic line of thought because it seems to assume that people have no agency, no preferences, and must buy whatever is produced. It’s like b
by jaredklewis 3y ago
I dislike this simplistic line of thought because it seems to assume that people have no agency, no preferences, and must buy whatever is produced.
It’s like blaming beer companies for liver disease. Beer is brewed and sold because people like beer. This has also made shareholders lots of money. So what?
- Fuut 3y ago[flagged]
- verve_rat 3y agoCf. smoking and all the success that has been had from banning the advertising of tobacco products.
- awongh 3y agoI think almost everyone except the most poisonous libertarians agree that there is some point at which thing tip into the realm of public health. Look at cigarette companies denying for so long that their product caused cancer (or at one point claiming it was good for pregnant women). Or the sale of assault rifles and their use in mass shootings. Or a less controversial one- that suicide rates were lowered when they changed the type of gas in people’s homes. I think as a society we can always collectively decide that regulating something might be for the public good. Sometimes we’re even correct about it.