You're acting like corporations aren't enacting control over large populations right now either.
Everything the market does as a byproduct of maximizing profits is fine, but all other intervention with provably better mental and physical health outcomes is authoritarian. Did I get that right?
First we have to all agree on what this means, which I'm quite sure is impossible. Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. That is exactly the basis for my opposition to authoritarian paternalism.
Also I disagree that corporations are "enacting control" - they are merely exerting influence. There is a world of difference.
> Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not.
In some ideal world, where both parties of an exchange hold equal bargaining power, the "free" market might be "voluntary".
This is certainly not the current state of affairs, though. Being able to "choose" between a crappy option and a horrible option is anything but voluntary: "you can choose to work for me for little to no money... or you can choose to starve to death. it's your 'free' choice."
The very premise of what would make a free market efficient in the real world simply doesn't exist, but we keep trying to convince ourselves that it does because we don't know or aren't used to anything different.
Being able to choose between horrible options is exactly the definition of freedom. Believe it or not many people would choose free destitution over pampered slavery. It is exactly the ability to make this choice, at the most extreme level, that should be respected. To take an maximal example: you should be able to sell your kidneys to fuel your heroin habit, for no other reason than because no one can claim more ownership over them than you.
To protect people, against their will, from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy is fundamentally paternalistic. The goal isn't efficiency, but the primacy of agency and consent.
If the two horrible options were free from context, sure. But that's hardly (if ever) the case. It is very convenient to start from a place where A has power over B, then say "B is free to choose whatever crappy options A offers, because... freedom".
Surely by it. I would struggle to find a precedent where children are considered equal to adults, and not subject to their authority. In fact my whole point is we shouldn't treat adults the same way we do children.
Why is it authoritarian and condescending for a government to provide service and address societal problems, but no less authoritarian or condescending for a government to be in the business of protecting the rights that any self-respecting freeholder should be ready and willing to do so?
Because that self same freeholder should be ready and willing to negotiate with others to provide whatever goods and services he needs. He shouldn't need a third party to intervene on his behalf, and, knowing that depriving anyone of freedom deprives him as well, should be loathe to apply force to compel the other free party he is negotiating with to meet his terms.
Sounds like then the truly moral position would be to cut out the government entirely. If the freeholder is ready to take on the grave responsibility of ensuring every single interaction, both large and small, are secure, then they should also be responsible for guaranteeing their own rights from all threats large and small, and not abdicate that in favor of a shadowy government.
Believe it or not, in the moment, you can use any sort of force required to defend yourself from violence. This is especially true in places that have castle doctrines and stand-your-ground laws. The government is there mostly to sort it out afterwards, and to discourage aggression by providing an alternative (due process) and punishing transgressors. The punishment of crime is what the government monopolizes, not self defence, since the alternative is generations-long blood feuds.
This presupposed the "voluntary" part of capitalism, which I find objectionable, but I didn't want to go on a tangent for too long.
FWIW, I wouldn't want to prescribe a particular habit of eating healthy or not binging media, but I also don't consider the current status quo neutral. It is true that it is simply a product of profit incentives, but that doesn't mean the outcomes are good, desirable or natural.
My point is that "good, desirable or natural" are not real. They are not concrete things that we can derive from observations about the world. They are akin to religions beliefs. Reasonable people can hold opposing views, and there is no oracle to divine the one truth. Given this situation, the only reasonable way forward seems to be tolerance of the full diversity of belief, and refrain from imposing one's own beliefs onto others.
This is why I wanted to avoid this discussion. Because philosophically, I really don't disagree with this statement, but the discussion has pivoted past the important part, where we talk about whether total economic freedom is itself ideology (or "an imposition of belief"). It doesn't exist in a vaccum. It is a way to maximize one particular aspect of freedom, but at the expense of other aspects. You will always have to make this trade off somewhere, paradox of tolerance and all, and I don't think this is the one we should make.
I'm curious how you would categorize total economic freedom in any sense an "imposition of belief". It is simply absence of any imposition into the economic realm. What other aspects are being sacrificed in order to maximise this aspect? I'm not sure the paradox of tolerance is a statement of fact.
But that economic system is built on barely 2 century old philosophy you take for granted. It is not "human nature". If you could argue for any political system to be "human nature" it would be feudalism or anarchism-without-adjectives.
What is being sacrificed? Equal starting conditions to start with. Wealth in capitalism tends to concentrate. Social mobility exists, but it is severely limited. Exploitation through holding capital is mandatory. I'm feeling this right now, I am in the top 25% income bracket overall and much better if accounting for age, yet I will never be able to do such trivial things regular workers could do just a few decades ago such as build a house, thanks to the freedom afforded to the absolute top end to turn housing into a speculative commodity. If I lived in the US, a considerably "freer" society than mine, my entire wealth would be consumed by healthcare, a result of the freedom of hospitals and insurers to charge arbitrarily high fees for maximum extraction.
I'm not arguing that it's "human nature". I'm arguing there's no such thing. I'm arguing that we are fundamentally decision-making agents.
> Equal starting conditions to start with
Equal conditions are not a prerequisite for liberty. They are in fact impossible to define and impossible to impose. You can be destitute and free, and you can be pampered and enslaved. The Darwinian nature of a free economic system isn't imposed, it's an emergent property of any system where scarce resources are competed for by living beings. As in any Darwinian system, the optimal behavior for the successful is to maximally exploit their success, to pull-up the ladder, so to speak.
Everything else you've said just betrays your religion: "Workers should be able to build houses". "Healthcare should be regulated so people can afford it". I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree here. In my religion, I'd prefer to die in agony rather than pry greedily into the pocket of an unwilling stranger. Why is your religion better than mine?
Which other freedoms are you referring to? How would they be reduced by total economic freedom? I don't see how economic freedom would lead directly to violence.
I agree that the maintenance of the common physical environment we live in should be regulated, but that's not what we're talking about here is it? We're talking about regulating interaction between people, which is inherently paternalistic.
- We already regulate interaction between people (e.g. you can't throw a rock at someone when you disagree with them). Even if it's paternalistic, surely you're not proposing we should do away with those regulations.
- The internet is a common shared environment, so its maintenance should be regulated like other environments to manage externalities.
These points seem consistent with your philosophy and also permit regulation of social media companies.
If it wasn't clear, I'm suggesting regulating nonviolent interaction is paternalistic, as is weaseling around it by expanding the definition of violence.
I agree we shouldn't let people physically destroy internet infrastructure. I don't think this is controversial. I don't think we should regulate how people peacefully interact.
Why is "violence" your boundary? Most people agree that lots of things can be "bad" besides violence. There's a pretty broad consensus on that. You're going to need some pretty strong arguments to justify legalizing theft and fraud.
I'm not trying to justify legalizing theft and fraud - these are most generally justified by property rights, which are somewhat tangential here. Neither of them set a precedent for the government intervening in honest interactions between people. Lots of things are widely considered "bad", that doesn't mean it wouldn't be tyrannical to make them illegal.
You didn't answer. Why do you draw the line there? What's so special about violence that it deserves special attention from the state, while other bad things don't? I see you've also added property rights now, which are a totally separate category from violence. Why these things in particular?
Because violence is horrific in a way that nothing else is. Poverty and illness are facts of nature, no living thing is immune. What's special about violence is that it's perpetrated by other people, people who have the cognitive capacity to understand the suffering they are directly causing.
Violence is fundamentally preventable because people have agency in ways that animals do not. You'll note that only violence with knowledge is considered horrific. For instance, being attacked by a person with the mind of a 4 year old isn't considered nearly as bad as being attacked by an otherwise normal adult. The adult knew what they were doing and did it anyways.
> I see you've also added property rights now, which are a totally separate category from violence
I suppose it stems from the idea of natural rights - ie. what would you be able to do if there were no other people around? Would you be able to put something down and expect to find it where you put it? If so then you have "property rights": the reasonable expectation that your material activities will not be interfered with. The rest of it is mediating how your property rights interact with those of others.
Liberty is basically the idea that you should be able to do anything at all as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same. The legitimacy of government is derived from its defence of liberty. It's not about preventing "bad things".
We’re talking about the concept of total economic freedom in general, which would inevitably lead to negative externalities of any kind, including to the physical environment, not merely interactions between people.
I'm not strictly in favour of total economic freedom and wasn't the one to bring it up. Namely I am in favour of regulating the physical commons - rights of way, air, water, etc. that we all must physically interact with. I'm against the paternalistic regulation of how free people should peacefully interact with each other, with the view to steer outcomes to some random idea of good.
What ensures the parties involved are free? Many of these issues being discussed deal with consequences experienced by one party that were never disclosed by the other. Information asymmetry makes such contracts un-free and thus the legal framework should permit nullification and redress.
To bring it back to the article at hand, did social media and other tech companies disclose the negative effects of the use of their products in their EULA?
The prohibition by the government of the use of physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom.
If a distributor of an addiction-forming substance engenders an addiction in customers, is that not utilizing physical force to deprive them of their freedom? Especially if the addictive properties were not disclosed ahead of time.
What do you mean "negative"? Why do you consider captivating people negative? Do you think this view is universally held?
I think people should be able to distribute any substances or provide any services "as is", without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.
Negative, in this context, can constitute enough for whatever grievance that enough users are unhappy with their customer experience. To take this discussion from the normative to the practical, I do not believe the appropriate government role here would be to act as sole regulator but rather aid those users who are aggrieved by these businesses in more precise actions, such as filing amicus briefs in class action suits by users who feel that their captivation has proven to be personally detrimental. Or perhaps for the FTC to provide guidance and support to consumer watchdog groups to form and issue PSAs on said detrimental effects. Empowering individuals and independent groups to come together. These supportive, assistive, incentive-based actions would not be utilizing the state’s monopoly on violence, and thus does not violate your views on the proper place of the government.
without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.
Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs rooted in civil society that can advise consumers on potential negative effects, to protect against information asymmetry, and so users will understand the full freedoms they have at their disposal for redress if a business happens to provide poor, injurious service.
> These supportive, assistive, incentive-based actions
All of these actions are done with the threat of fines for noncompliance, and the threat of imprisonment for noncompliance with the fines. They are also financed by taxation, which is involuntary and redistributive by nature.
> Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs
If these NGOs do not occur naturally, then there's clearly not enough demand for them. This is supported by your proposal to use authority to force them into existence. I'm opposing the use of authority to intervene in peaceful interaction between citizens.
Instead of forcing the issue, why not just be content with the fact that most people are not interested in forming voluntary collectives, even when it is in their interest, and in spite of the fact that they are free and entitled to, and allow them to suffer the consequences?
> why not just be content with the fact that most people are not interested in forming voluntary collectives
Why are you insistent on claiming the nonexistence of information asymmetry?
> They are also financed by taxation, which is involuntary and redistributive by nature.
Ah if we go down that route of normative woolgathering then we can next call property theft and even land (or at least rent) theft, and continue this endless wheel of rhetorical Samsara.
It certainly does justify it. And literally everything else. It's an argument against laws of any kind. After all, "good, desirable or natural" are not real. We have no framework to rank desirability of outcome, according to you. The only reasonable way forward is tolerance of the full diversity of belief, right? Including the belief that murder is okay.
Well, if one person doesn't want to be murdered and another wants to murder someone, and these people are equal, then we have a conflict. We should tolerate the full diversity of belief, but we should not tolerate infringement on anyone's liberty.
Everything the market does as a byproduct of maximizing profits is fine, but all other intervention with provably better mental and physical health outcomes is authoritarian. Did I get that right?