4 ms·

gsera's point was that the suspicious part was the business side of it not the government.

by guelo 9mo ago

qsera 9mo ago
Now that the original thread is flagged and hidden, we can discuss without fear. In capitalism, the incentive of the manufactures to maintain product quality is that people won't buy the thing if it is bad, or does not appear to work. This cannot be cheated. You cannot "bribe" a population. But when government mandates a product, then it changes the equation greatly against the population. Manufacture is no longer incentivized to maintain quality. If the quality is not easy to identify then it becomes much more easy. Now, they are outside capitalism. Now they can bribe the government, and enjoy perpetual sales. So to answer your question, if it was not mandated, there would be no push against it. Such businesses will run out of business as capitalism run its course.
- surgical_fire 9mo ago
  That's not how it works. Governments have regulatory powers. They can stipulate prices, control quality, etc and so forth. Companies can be fined for breaching regulation. Ultimately, the government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary.
  - qsera 9mo ago
    > Governments have regulatory powers. Which part of "bribe the government" didn't you understand, assuming you read my whole message? > The government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary. Right. Let that be done.
    - surgical_fire 9mo ago
      > Which part of "bribe the government" I read it. I just interpreted as "government icky" rhetoric that is very common around here. Corruption is a tool of any power structure. Gesturing vaguely towards it to invalidate any societal initiative is not an argument, it is just bad-faith whinging. "Why build roads? The government can be bribed" "Why trust the courts? The government can be bribed" "Wefare? The government can be bribed"
      - qsera 9mo ago
        >is not an argument Can you clarify which argument of mine are you referring to here?
        lostlogin 9mo ago
        Not OP but I’d say that your argument sounds like the libertarian one whereby all government and all regulation is bad. If that is your position, point me towards a place where libertarianism has worked.
- lostlogin 9mo ago
  > if it was not mandated, there would be no push against it. Do you really think that? You can’t think of any other health choice that has zealots protesting other people’s choices? You get anti-vax people wanting to avoid the vaccinated, removing masks from those wearing them, claiming not to hear the voice of people wearing masks.

gsera's point was that the suspicious part was the business side of it not the government.

by guelo 9mo ago

gsera's point was that the suspicious part was the business side of it not the government.

qsera 9mo ago

Now that the original thread is flagged and hidden, we can discuss without fear. In capitalism, the incentive of the manufactures to maintain product quality is that people won't buy the thing if it is bad, or does not appear to work. This cannot be cheated. You cannot "bribe" a population. But when government mandates a product, then it changes the equation greatly against the population. Manufacture is no longer incentivized to maintain quality. If the quality is not easy to identify then it becomes much more easy. Now, they are outside capitalism. Now they can bribe the government, and enjoy perpetual sales. So to answer your question, if it was not mandated, there would be no push against it. Such businesses will run out of business as capitalism run its course.

surgical_fire 9mo ago
That's not how it works. Governments have regulatory powers. They can stipulate prices, control quality, etc and so forth. Companies can be fined for breaching regulation. Ultimately, the government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary.
- qsera 9mo ago
  > Governments have regulatory powers. Which part of "bribe the government" didn't you understand, assuming you read my whole message? > The government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary. Right. Let that be done.
  - surgical_fire 9mo ago
    > Which part of "bribe the government" I read it. I just interpreted as "government icky" rhetoric that is very common around here. Corruption is a tool of any power structure. Gesturing vaguely towards it to invalidate any societal initiative is not an argument, it is just bad-faith whinging. "Why build roads? The government can be bribed" "Why trust the courts? The government can be bribed" "Wefare? The government can be bribed"
    - qsera 9mo ago
      >is not an argument Can you clarify which argument of mine are you referring to here?
      - lostlogin 9mo ago
        Not OP but I’d say that your argument sounds like the libertarian one whereby all government and all regulation is bad. If that is your position, point me towards a place where libertarianism has worked.
lostlogin 9mo ago
> if it was not mandated, there would be no push against it. Do you really think that? You can’t think of any other health choice that has zealots protesting other people’s choices? You get anti-vax people wanting to avoid the vaccinated, removing masks from those wearing them, claiming not to hear the voice of people wearing masks.