4 ms·

Ahh, and that's the point. It wouldn't need to. Because no one should enforce anything. It would only inform. Consumers must have a choice. When you start banni

by snitko 13y ago

Ahh, and that's the point. It wouldn't need to. Because no one should enforce anything. It would only inform. Consumers must have a choice. When you start banning businesses from operating, you have countless possibilities for corruption and you remove choice from consumers, treating them as mindless idiots incapable of making an informed choice. And if you think they are, then they also shouldn't be allowed to vote.

nav1 13y ago
"Sorry none of the water suppliers in your area provide water safe for human consumption. Good luck!" Now that would be helpful. But sure, you can just move elsewhere. It's going to be easy selling your old house given that there is no clean water available. Edit: As a bonus, health insurance companies should deny you coverage because you live in a high risk area.
- snitko 13y ago
  If there is a demand for clean water at the price level where it is economically feasible to supply one, it will be supplied. If people prefer to spend less money and have dirty water, they made their choice too. Your case is completely hypothetical.
  - scott_s 13y ago
    There are probably areas in this country that it would be more profitable for the water companies to stop serving. I think that it is a good thing that they cannot do that.
    - snitko 13y ago
      If you are right, then these areas would remain without water supply at all. Last time I checked, government cannot force private companies to do business.
      - scott_s 13y ago
        Government can set the conditions under which a private company can do business. Companies that provide fundamental services - like water, power, and sanitation - often have government granted monopolies over an area. In exchange for existing without market competition, such companies are subject to more regulation, and often have to service particular areas.
        snitko 13y ago
        Then in this case it turns out that taxpayers from developed regions subsidize those in the remote ones. I'm not saying helping people out is a bad idea, but forcing people to help out other people certainly is. It is absolutely no ones fault that some people live in remote regions.
scott_s 13y ago
Personally, I like that the federal government has the authority to shut down food production plants if they are deemed unsafe. Consumers rarely have full information, and individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk.
- snitko 13y ago
  By that logic, people shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Also if you don't allow people to learn to make choices, they never will, always relying on the nanny state.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > By that logic I wish people would stop using this phrase to mean "I can invent a chain of reasoning which leads to your conclusion and also to this ridiculous conclusion, but has no resemblance to any premise you've actually stated, and I'd like to pretend that that chain of reasoning was yours".
    - snitko 13y ago
      No, it's just pure logic. If you're saying that "individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk" then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Electing someone is a huge long term risk and it is much more difficult to get rid of an elected official (takes 4 years at least) than to switch to another product or service.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > If you're saying that "individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk" then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Sure, if you further assume the premise that "people who belong to a class that are demonstrably bad at evalauting long-term risk should not be allowed to vote". Of course, that's not a premise that was raised, or is even directly relevant to the argument made in, scott_s's post upthread. It's, at best, a premise that is extremely loosely analogous to something one might reasonably interpret as an implied premise of scott_s's argument, but if you want to argue against scott_s's argument it would be better to address it directly rather than by trying to pretend that the conclusion of a chain of requiring a premise which is, at best, loosely analogous to something that might be an implicit premise of his proceeds from "the same logic" as his argument.

by snitko 13y ago

nav1 13y ago

"Sorry none of the water suppliers in your area provide water safe for human consumption. Good luck!" Now that would be helpful. But sure, you can just move elsewhere. It's going to be easy selling your old house given that there is no clean water available. Edit: As a bonus, health insurance companies should deny you coverage because you live in a high risk area.

snitko 13y ago
If there is a demand for clean water at the price level where it is economically feasible to supply one, it will be supplied. If people prefer to spend less money and have dirty water, they made their choice too. Your case is completely hypothetical.
- scott_s 13y ago
  There are probably areas in this country that it would be more profitable for the water companies to stop serving. I think that it is a good thing that they cannot do that.
  - snitko 13y ago
    If you are right, then these areas would remain without water supply at all. Last time I checked, government cannot force private companies to do business.
    - scott_s 13y ago
      Government can set the conditions under which a private company can do business. Companies that provide fundamental services - like water, power, and sanitation - often have government granted monopolies over an area. In exchange for existing without market competition, such companies are subject to more regulation, and often have to service particular areas.
      - snitko 13y ago
        Then in this case it turns out that taxpayers from developed regions subsidize those in the remote ones. I'm not saying helping people out is a bad idea, but forcing people to help out other people certainly is. It is absolutely no ones fault that some people live in remote regions.

scott_s 13y ago

Personally, I like that the federal government has the authority to shut down food production plants if they are deemed unsafe. Consumers rarely have full information, and individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk.

snitko 13y ago
By that logic, people shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Also if you don't allow people to learn to make choices, they never will, always relying on the nanny state.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > By that logic I wish people would stop using this phrase to mean "I can invent a chain of reasoning which leads to your conclusion and also to this ridiculous conclusion, but has no resemblance to any premise you've actually stated, and I'd like to pretend that that chain of reasoning was yours".
  - snitko 13y ago
    No, it's just pure logic. If you're saying that "individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk" then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Electing someone is a huge long term risk and it is much more difficult to get rid of an elected official (takes 4 years at least) than to switch to another product or service.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > If you're saying that "individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk" then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Sure, if you further assume the premise that "people who belong to a class that are demonstrably bad at evalauting long-term risk should not be allowed to vote". Of course, that's not a premise that was raised, or is even directly relevant to the argument made in, scott_s's post upthread. It's, at best, a premise that is extremely loosely analogous to something one might reasonably interpret as an implied premise of scott_s's argument, but if you want to argue against scott_s's argument it would be better to address it directly rather than by trying to pretend that the conclusion of a chain of requiring a premise which is, at best, loosely analogous to something that might be an implicit premise of his proceeds from "the same logic" as his argument.