6 ms·

I'm torn here. If you insist everyone make every moral choice for themselves, then we will be unable to maximize the "right" choices. For example: If I want to

by patcon 13y ago

I'm torn here. If you insist everyone make every moral choice for themselves, then we will be unable to maximize the "right" choices. For example: If I want to buy ethical foods, I'd rather shop at a place where all these criteria are enforced. It would be mind-numbingly draining to have to make all these choices myself. Frankly, I would tune out. In a libertarian society, every person would need to be educated on food systems, why some are ethical and why some aren't, etc. And only then could we have an equitable system that is supported by choice. But people don't want to invest that much into understanding the thing that keeps them nourished. This is the problem I see with libertarianism. Without some form of, hopefully mild coercion, people just tune out based on gut feeling. If they don't want to participate and contribute to something after the quick-and-dirty explanation, then they're out -- nevermind the 3 year study and expert panel that analyzed the issue and recommended process/measure/regulation X. I agree that our legislation and regulations need to be more responsive and aligned with reality, but gunning for everything to be "opt-out" does not seem sustainable. Sorry, I go back and forth. I'm not libertarian by any means, but being so highly involved in open source community, I see the value of properly structured voluntary communities. Basically, I'm really torn about everything I've said above :)

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> I'm torn here That's good. You're sensing that something is wrong. >> If you insist everyone make every moral choice for themselves, then we will be unable to maximize the "right" choices Why would "we" need to "maximize" the right choices? Who's we anyway? Aren't we all just individuals, with our own goals and desires that are constantly changing anyway? Who's anyone to "maximize" the "rightness" of your choices, as long as you don't harm others? How bad should you want that bar of chocolate tomorrow at noon? What about in the evening? See, economies consist of exchanges between people, and whenever an exchange is voluntary, it leaves both parties better off. There's no "optimization" necessary there. It's all based on each individual's subjective preferences. If you want an apple, and have a dollar, you can give that dollar to someone in exchange for an apple. If you do this, it means you valued the apple higher than your dollar, and the other guy valued your dollar higher than his apple! -Bam. Both are better off. No "maximizing" necessary. >> In a libertarian society, every person would need to be educated on food systems, why some are ethical and why some aren't, etc Really? Is it really unclear to anyone that treating animals well is better than treating them horribly? Why would anyone prefer the meat that's produced through treating animals horribly, or even badly, compared to a more "organic" alternative? Sure, prices are a factor, but just about everyone would like to support treating animals well, right? So if organic production is increased, those prices will fall. It may still be a bit more expensive, but organic, non-GMO food comes with the additional benefit of not being harmful to your health, and that's quite valuable too. >> nevermind the 3 year study and expert panel that analyzed the issue and recommended process/measure/regulation X. Who are the "experts"? -Where do they come from? What are they affiliated with? Who paid for the study? What kind of regulation are we talking about? Why would it be good? What's the alternative? How often is coercion better than no coercion? (Pro-tip: never) .. And so on.
- drakeandrews 13y ago
  How about when someone doesn't support treating animals well. Or values your apple more than your life? Or decides they have this million tonnes of toxic gunk and decides that instead of paying someone who knows how to deal with it he's just going to dump it all in your lake? Or when someone realises that you value organic produce more, and decides to lie and say that their produce is in fact organic? What happens when someone realises your house is on top of a nice mineral deposit but can't give you sufficient value to vacate your property and decides to burn it down in the middle of the night? What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right?
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right? I'm sensing a reluctance to process ideas here. Bad stuff is going to happen regardless of how our societies are organized. That doesn't mean it's alright to take someone's property by force, nor that voluntary, "market solutions" to real problems would not emerge.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > That's good. You're sensing that something is wrong. Please stop coercing him using appeals to emotion and false authority. It's paternalistic and condescending.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> Please stop coercing him using appeals to emotion and false authority. It's paternalistic and condescending. Tell me, do you think that when say, 330 million people are systematically punished for attempting to keep their property, something just might, in fact, be wrong? What about 7 billion people?
    - saraid216 13y ago
troglodie 13y ago
Libertarianism requires perfect information to be disseminated to every rational actor instantly any time anything happens ever.

by patcon 13y ago

anoncowherd 13y ago

>> I'm torn here That's good. You're sensing that something is wrong. >> If you insist everyone make every moral choice for themselves, then we will be unable to maximize the "right" choices Why would "we" need to "maximize" the right choices? Who's we anyway? Aren't we all just individuals, with our own goals and desires that are constantly changing anyway? Who's anyone to "maximize" the "rightness" of your choices, as long as you don't harm others? How bad should you want that bar of chocolate tomorrow at noon? What about in the evening? See, economies consist of exchanges between people, and whenever an exchange is voluntary, it leaves both parties better off. There's no "optimization" necessary there. It's all based on each individual's subjective preferences. If you want an apple, and have a dollar, you can give that dollar to someone in exchange for an apple. If you do this, it means you valued the apple higher than your dollar, and the other guy valued your dollar higher than his apple! -Bam. Both are better off. No "maximizing" necessary. >> In a libertarian society, every person would need to be educated on food systems, why some are ethical and why some aren't, etc Really? Is it really unclear to anyone that treating animals well is better than treating them horribly? Why would anyone prefer the meat that's produced through treating animals horribly, or even badly, compared to a more "organic" alternative? Sure, prices are a factor, but just about everyone would like to support treating animals well, right? So if organic production is increased, those prices will fall. It may still be a bit more expensive, but organic, non-GMO food comes with the additional benefit of not being harmful to your health, and that's quite valuable too. >> nevermind the 3 year study and expert panel that analyzed the issue and recommended process/measure/regulation X. Who are the "experts"? -Where do they come from? What are they affiliated with? Who paid for the study? What kind of regulation are we talking about? Why would it be good? What's the alternative? How often is coercion better than no coercion? (Pro-tip: never) .. And so on.

drakeandrews 13y ago
How about when someone doesn't support treating animals well. Or values your apple more than your life? Or decides they have this million tonnes of toxic gunk and decides that instead of paying someone who knows how to deal with it he's just going to dump it all in your lake? Or when someone realises that you value organic produce more, and decides to lie and say that their produce is in fact organic? What happens when someone realises your house is on top of a nice mineral deposit but can't give you sufficient value to vacate your property and decides to burn it down in the middle of the night? What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right?
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right? I'm sensing a reluctance to process ideas here. Bad stuff is going to happen regardless of how our societies are organized. That doesn't mean it's alright to take someone's property by force, nor that voluntary, "market solutions" to real problems would not emerge.
saraid216 13y ago
> That's good. You're sensing that something is wrong. Please stop coercing him using appeals to emotion and false authority. It's paternalistic and condescending.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> Please stop coercing him using appeals to emotion and false authority. It's paternalistic and condescending. Tell me, do you think that when say, 330 million people are systematically punished for attempting to keep their property, something just might, in fact, be wrong? What about 7 billion people?
  - saraid216 13y ago

troglodie 13y ago

Libertarianism requires perfect information to be disseminated to every rational actor instantly any time anything happens ever.