Originally Posted By: sini


There is huge difference between "lets make money by lying" and "maybe black is white" - that difference is intentions. Government doesn't start out with malicious intent. Another difference - representative government has mechanisms in place where you can enact political change. Corporations - not so much.



My point was that if the media campaign is successful, Govt itself being representative will also be buying into the idea that Black is White. Iraq is one high profile example. Aspartame is another. The media/legal assault against Amish farmers in Ohio I mentioned previously is another.

Quote:


You want to present markets as democratic, but they are not representative democracy. Some people get 1billion votes, others get none. Plus they have no protections associated with a Republic - markets will exploit minorities if it is profitable.



You are correct, some people have more votes than others. But it is still an individual choice regarding how to cast their votes. Products that do not get voted on still fail.

Sure, if word gets out that productX might not be healthy long term - some billionaire could still spend a fortune and keep that product viable... but so what. Thats his problem.



Quote:


My utopia is when these decisions are done empirically based on data, and frequently re-evaluated to see if new data changes anything.


Why do you wish to apply govt force to this though? That is my issue. Jefferson once said that when people are wrong, you should not take away their power but rather inform their discretion. I think this applies here.

You are never going to be able to perform optimization on the problems humanity faces because you will never ever have all the pertinent info.

As we all know, in the absence of all the data it is quite easy to confound and mislead. Sometimes our models are just plain wrong. The way you frame your approach sounds simple, but actual implementation is anything but.

And it still has not delineated where individual responsibility starts and ends. Lets take corn sugar for example. Ok , if people over eat it especially over a long period of time those people may experience various health issues. But is this really the fault of the corn sugar?

I fear the effects on society of people being told that they do not need to take responsibility for themselves far more than I fear the effects of corn.

People need the ability to run their own lives and make decisions for themselves. That they might not behave the way you would or would wish them to is not cause to abrogate their rights or protect them from themselves. And that is without even addressing the issue of when Govt is wrong.

Honestly it sounds to me like you might enjoy doing research and reporting for the public good. I think that would be a noble endeavor. That type of activity does make an impact. Look what happened to Olestra for example. It is quite possible to inform people and improve society without resorting to force. I think this is the proper path.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)