|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 04/22/2010 : 22:56:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It seems a carrot and stick approach is best for coercing socially desirable behaviors.
And what's wrong with this exactly? |
The argument against it is opposition to the idea that we allow a body to coerce us. Government has discretion to determine what is socially desirable and then coerce it. Here's a short list of things they've decided to coerce via tax deductions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_deduction#United_States
Some of them are good, but the discretion allows it to extend to things like capital losses, gambling losses, differences in whether you're married or not, as well as all the other stories about strange tax deductions that pop up occasionally (stripper getting breast implants as a business expense, buying pet food, etc). I don't like the idea that government can decide what is socially desirable and then coerce us into fitting whatever it is because, in many cases, they choose to cover strange things.
Something I dislike is the way that churches can do with tax deductions. Suppose a person from a church volunteers to hang their newest crucifix, or whatever other device of torture they're hanging. The church can say they hired the person, pay them, have the volunteer donate it back, it can be considered a deductible contribution. You can't claim using your time to teach a Sunday school class to be a contribution, but you can claim the supplies you buy with which to teach.
| I mean, cigarettes and liquor are both still legal, so I don't really understand the libertarian argument. It seems to have something to do with nebulous appeals to "freedom," a visceral dislike of government, and the dubious belief that unrestricted capitalism can correct all of society's ills (despite the fact that this has never historically been the case whenever it was tried). But I don't see much in the way of substantial solutions beyond "fuck 'em." |
Not really a libertarian, but I can certainly explain arguments beyond that. With the view that coercion above, I think the discretion given to government is the critical point libertarians, or at least I, oppose, not necessarily everything they do with the discretion, so I don't think it's always a mindless dislike of government. I do think it is somewhat idealistic, possibly the the expense of pragmatism, and maybe even utility, to an extent, though of course the word "freedom" is abused and poorly defined by many libertarians (and non-libertarians).
I don't think that most libertarians support unrestricted capitalism. For example, they, or at least many of them, support monopoly laws in some manner. Most influential economists, even the ones libertarians like (Hayek and to a lesser extent Friedman), support monopoly laws of some sort. Any knowledge of economics of course shows that capitalism only perpetuates the forces we find desirable under certain conditions, though they can be quite powerful and desirable when the conditions do prevail. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/22/2010 23:00:07 |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 23:03:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Too often I hear about "regulation" like it's some bad thing, but in this day and age, does anyone really think that they'd really get a gallon of gas at the pump-- and not 0.98 gallons-- if such things weren't regulated? Or 50 mg of ibuprofen-- and not 48.6 mg? |
I expect we'd struggle to find many libertarians who would disagree with those ones in particular because we have no way of verifying these things. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 02:47:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I meant a whole day's food 
|
But that is not actually true, if what the article told us was correct. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 03:53:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Fripp
"Oh sure Lisa, some magical animal" --Homer Simpson |
Damn, I forgot all about that. I do remember the girl in one of MTV's Road Rules seasons who didn't know that sausage was pork. She refused to compete in "Bobbing for Pigs' Feet" because she was Jewish, but had had sausage with her breakfast that same day.
|
The Simpsons is a goldmine of quotes and I seem to remember that there was a thread here devoted to that.
My wife's not as much of a Simpsons fan, but this line had her in tears. We still constantly quote it.
Another classic: "Facts, schmacts. You can prove anything with facts." --Homer |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 04:01:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
In fact, I recall a discussion I had with an ardent libertarian who was convinced that speed limits were some sort of serious infringement. I always think about that conversation when I'm trying to turn onto a street and people are blazing by at 20+ mph over the speed limit. My friend thought that speed limits were all about him,
|
I heard some clown call in to a radio show who felt that the faster he drove (speed limits be damned), he would be off the road sooner therefore he was safer than all the other drivers. I couldn't believe he was serious. I used to say that to people as a joke. Interestingly, he (as well as all libertarians) considered himself to be an excellent driver. Is there anyone who doesn't consider themselves to be an excellent driver?
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 07:26:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
In fact, I recall a discussion I had with an ardent libertarian who was convinced that speed limits were some sort of serious infringement. I always think about that conversation when I'm trying to turn onto a street and people are blazing by at 20+ mph over the speed limit. My friend thought that speed limits were all about him,
|
I heard some clown call in to a radio show who felt that the faster he drove (speed limits be damned), he would be off the road sooner therefore he was safer than all the other drivers. I couldn't believe he was serious. I used to say that to people as a joke. Interestingly, he (as well as all libertarians) considered himself to be an excellent driver. Is there anyone who doesn't consider themselves to be an excellent driver?
|
I once did a paper in college on speed limits. At the time I found statistics that said you where approximately 10x less likely to be involved in a fatal crash if you drove 10mph Faster than the flow of traffic.....and approximately 10x more likely to be involved in a fatal crash if you drove 10mph below the flow of traffic.
I believe that applied to highway driving (it's been a long time) I think the theory was that moving above the flow you were a more active and aware driver and at 10mph below the flow you were just "In the Way". BTW the average "flow" was above the posted limits.....I think it averaged about 4mph above posted.
They used to have a saying here in Michigan (back when the highway limit was 55mph) "Dive 55 and bring them home alive" At the time my motto was "Drive 75 and bring them home alive...sooner!" |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 07:59:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Too often I hear about "regulation" like it's some bad thing, but in this day and age, does anyone really think that they'd really get a gallon of gas at the pump-- and not 0.98 gallons-- if such things weren't regulated? Or 50 mg of ibuprofen-- and not 48.6 mg? |
I expect we'd struggle to find many libertarians who would disagree with those ones in particular because we have no way of verifying these things. |
Just like there's no way for the average consumer to verify the salt content of foods. In other words, the salt content is already regulated, at least in terms of fraud. Ooops, wrong thread.
By the way, there are serious efforts under way to even more strictly regulate gasoline sales, since very hot or very cold weather (I forget which) can cause the pumps to shortchange a person. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 19:54:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I meant a whole day's food
|
But that is not actually true, if what the article told us was correct. |
The article said Americans typically consume more than they need, it didn't say anything about the choices available in the store. Gupta showed substitutes that were available in the store actually. The news anchors mentioned products they've seen introduced with low sodium. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 19:59:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Too often I hear about "regulation" like it's some bad thing, but in this day and age, does anyone really think that they'd really get a gallon of gas at the pump-- and not 0.98 gallons-- if such things weren't regulated? Or 50 mg of ibuprofen-- and not 48.6 mg? |
I expect we'd struggle to find many libertarians who would disagree with those ones in particular because we have no way of verifying these things. |
Just like there's no way for the average consumer to verify the salt content of foods. In other words, the salt content is already regulated, at least in terms of fraud. Ooops, wrong thread. |
They're regulated in the sense of being required to tell people how much salt is in their products, yes, that's not the same as requiring a particular limit. They could lie, of course, and I support surprise examinations and the like by the FDA. The regulation would make no difference on this in particular, manufacturers could still lie.
| By the way, there are serious efforts under way to even more strictly regulate gasoline sales, since very hot or very cold weather (I forget which) can cause the pumps to shortchange a person. |
Sounds good. I'm all for any regulation verifying the information companies release involving their products and making sure they don't cheat customers by giving them less product than they have said. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/23/2010 20:01:22 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 21:00:01 [Permalink]
|
I once did a paper in college on speed limits. At the time I found statistics that said you where approximately 10x less likely to be involved in a fatal crash if you drove 10mph Faster than the flow of traffic.....and approximately 10x more likely to be involved in a fatal crash if you drove 10mph below the flow of traffic.
I believe that applied to highway driving (it's been a long time) I think the theory was that moving above the flow you were a more active and aware driver and at 10mph below the flow you were just "In the Way". BTW the average "flow" was above the posted limits.....I think it averaged about 4mph above posted. |
I'd be interested in knowing where you got those stats. The national speed limit used to be 65 until the Oil Embargo of the early 70s. They lowered it to conserve gas. An unintended consequence was that they discovered that traffic fatalities dropped drastically so they kept the limit where it was. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 21:22:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Sounds good. I'm all for any regulation verifying the information companies release involving their products and making sure they don't cheat customers by giving them less product than they have said. |
And this is where it gets weird for me. You're in favor of using government power to protect an ignorant consumer's wallet, but you're against using government power to protect an ignorant consumer's health. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2010 : 00:15:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Sounds good. I'm all for any regulation verifying the information companies release involving their products and making sure they don't cheat customers by giving them less product than they have said. |
And this is where it gets weird for me. You're in favor of using government power to protect an ignorant consumer's wallet, but you're against using government power to protect an ignorant consumer's health. |
I think we're building on entirely different thought processes.
I don't support nutrition labeling for the consumer's wallet, it's purely so that consumers are given the opportunity to know what they're eating, so that they can make more healthy choices. If the information was hidden, they wouldn't even know what they're eating.
My primary reason for supporting accurate gas pump measurement is not for consumers' wallets either, it's more a matter of (what I consider) justice, not giving people less than the amount for which they've paid and the gas station has advertised. Beyond a small unavoidable margin of error, I think it amounts to stealing.
To put it back within the context of the conversation, if gas pumps were not accurate, the customer could not know how much he or she is getting and cannot make an informed decision on where to buy their gas. This gives the consumer the ability to shop around and helps his/her wallet, which is of course a secondary reason I like it.
To me there is more than whether the consumer is ignorant, it's whether the consumer has been given the opportunity to not be ignorant with a little effort. (I wouldn't expect everyone to know how to do very complicated things.) I think that to cross this boundary, and to set the precedent of policing things that are within the capabilities of nearly everyone that requires such little effort, I am afraid that we treat citizens as essentially mindless beings.
This particular regulation will likely do little if anything toward that end, but I do see it as logically equivalent to things that very well could. I don't care that much if it does happen: I don't think this regulation would in any way lead to such things. Luckily, laws aren't usually consistent. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Contradictions of philosophy
