3 ms·

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

by 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.
dkuntz2 13y ago
It's not that individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk, but don't have all the facts pertaining to every single decision they have to make daily, and don't have the time to seek out all of those facts. Do you have the ability to make sure that every single piece of food you purchase is safe for human consumption?
- snitko 13y ago
  I agree. But nobody asks people to do that. I'm just saying that consumer protection agencies could inform people "hey, this is an unreliable business, don't buy from it". Then people would be able to choose among various consumer protection agencies they trust. Government is just a giant monopoly on the consumer protection market and the one that also has the power to shut businesses down, leaving even less choice to consumers. Now consumers cannot even make the choice of trusting or not trusting the government on its decision.
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    And those agencies, they're all working for the consumers best interests and not their own, as is what the system you're advocating for would dictate they do without regulation, something your arguing against? Who's going to create those agencies? In your advocated system the companies being investigated are the ones more likely to make the agencies than outside individuals because their isn't enough incentive to enter that market. Especially because without regulation companies can decide to open their facilities to agencies that are on good terms with the companies in question.
    - snitko 13y ago
      You're right, I'm sorry. Having one centralized consumer protection agency with the power to shut businesses down, an agency that people cannot stop paying to (with their tax money) will create less possibilities for corruption and more choice for the consumer.
      - dkuntz2 13y ago
        Have I argued for centralized power? The problem you have is that you can't see a situation where people aren't consumers, and where the acquisition of wealth isn't the only goal of everyone. The problem is that the current system encourages corporations instead of cooperatives. Treating humanity like a collection of profit-maximizing individualists means the only possible solution to you is more competition. Were humanity only a collection of profit-maximizing individualists we'd still be uneducated cavemen. Society moves forwards because it realizes that it needs to work together. Did the Great Depression occur because of too much governmental power? Did the 2008 crash occur because of too much regulation?
        snitko 13y ago
        > Have I argued for centralized power? Then what are you arguing for? My understanding is that you say free market cannot be better than having some degree of regulation. Regulation assumes government, doesn't it?
nav1 13y ago
How are consumers supposed to evaluate risk when private companies are under no obligation to provide them with information? It sounds like such a system would be amazing for companies, but quite terrible for anyone else.
- snitko 13y ago
  How can I evaluate risk when I vote when politicians are elected for 4 years and regulatory agencies are not even affected by elections? Can I switch a regulatory agency? Can I stop paying taxes, so my representative, whom I no longer trust, stops receiving his salary? No I can't. The answer to your question is competition. If a consumer protection agency wants my money, it has to earn my trust and be better than its competitors.
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    And when none of the consumer protection agencies preform satisfactorily there are no more consumer protection agencies.
    - snitko 13y ago
      Why? Why are there no more?
      - dkuntz2 13y ago
        Seriously? Because when every consumer protection agency in your free market utopia fails to perform adequately they no longer exist. If no consumer protection agency earns anyone's trust, how does it continue to exist in your perfect world? On a related note: what incentive is there for an individual to create a consumer protection agency? What incentive is there for a company to open their doors to a consumer protection agency that isn't going to give them a good rating?
        snitko 13y ago
        > what incentive is there for an individual to create a consumer protection agency? Being paid by people who would like a reliable information about the products and services they purchase? > What incentive is there for a company to open their doors to a consumer protection agency that isn't going to give them a good rating? Being excluded from the rating altogether to the advantage of their competitors?

by snitko 13y ago

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.

dkuntz2 13y ago

It's not that individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk, but don't have all the facts pertaining to every single decision they have to make daily, and don't have the time to seek out all of those facts. Do you have the ability to make sure that every single piece of food you purchase is safe for human consumption?

snitko 13y ago
I agree. But nobody asks people to do that. I'm just saying that consumer protection agencies could inform people "hey, this is an unreliable business, don't buy from it". Then people would be able to choose among various consumer protection agencies they trust. Government is just a giant monopoly on the consumer protection market and the one that also has the power to shut businesses down, leaving even less choice to consumers. Now consumers cannot even make the choice of trusting or not trusting the government on its decision.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  And those agencies, they're all working for the consumers best interests and not their own, as is what the system you're advocating for would dictate they do without regulation, something your arguing against? Who's going to create those agencies? In your advocated system the companies being investigated are the ones more likely to make the agencies than outside individuals because their isn't enough incentive to enter that market. Especially because without regulation companies can decide to open their facilities to agencies that are on good terms with the companies in question.
  - snitko 13y ago
    You're right, I'm sorry. Having one centralized consumer protection agency with the power to shut businesses down, an agency that people cannot stop paying to (with their tax money) will create less possibilities for corruption and more choice for the consumer.
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      Have I argued for centralized power? The problem you have is that you can't see a situation where people aren't consumers, and where the acquisition of wealth isn't the only goal of everyone. The problem is that the current system encourages corporations instead of cooperatives. Treating humanity like a collection of profit-maximizing individualists means the only possible solution to you is more competition. Were humanity only a collection of profit-maximizing individualists we'd still be uneducated cavemen. Society moves forwards because it realizes that it needs to work together. Did the Great Depression occur because of too much governmental power? Did the 2008 crash occur because of too much regulation?
      - snitko 13y ago
        > Have I argued for centralized power? Then what are you arguing for? My understanding is that you say free market cannot be better than having some degree of regulation. Regulation assumes government, doesn't it?

nav1 13y ago

How are consumers supposed to evaluate risk when private companies are under no obligation to provide them with information? It sounds like such a system would be amazing for companies, but quite terrible for anyone else.

snitko 13y ago
How can I evaluate risk when I vote when politicians are elected for 4 years and regulatory agencies are not even affected by elections? Can I switch a regulatory agency? Can I stop paying taxes, so my representative, whom I no longer trust, stops receiving his salary? No I can't. The answer to your question is competition. If a consumer protection agency wants my money, it has to earn my trust and be better than its competitors.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  And when none of the consumer protection agencies preform satisfactorily there are no more consumer protection agencies.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Why? Why are there no more?
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      Seriously? Because when every consumer protection agency in your free market utopia fails to perform adequately they no longer exist. If no consumer protection agency earns anyone's trust, how does it continue to exist in your perfect world? On a related note: what incentive is there for an individual to create a consumer protection agency? What incentive is there for a company to open their doors to a consumer protection agency that isn't going to give them a good rating?
      - snitko 13y ago
        > what incentive is there for an individual to create a consumer protection agency? Being paid by people who would like a reliable information about the products and services they purchase? > What incentive is there for a company to open their doors to a consumer protection agency that isn't going to give them a good rating? Being excluded from the rating altogether to the advantage of their competitors?