The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 6 guests, and 27 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
Devan Omega
Newest Members
Luckystrikes, Shingen, BillNyeCommieSpy, Lamp, AllenGlines
1,477 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,094
Posts116,355
Members1,477
Most Online276
Aug 3rd, 2023
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
1,986,836 Trump card
1,323,918 Picture Thread
473,873 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
You do not want to get me started on the USDA and their gestapo tactics to support Big Agra. Cronyism at its worst.


Nail. Head.

Originally Posted By: sinij
Conceptually - government should be in business of informing citizens and punishing any kind of misbehavior in this area. This is regulation, and goes against typical "small government" libertarian views.

USDA is a good example of this concept.


Its not that libertarianism precludes punishment of misbehavior.

The question is what metrics and due process are involved in determining "misbehavior".

If you create a tasty soda, and some people decide to drink a case a day for 40 years (extreme example, talking about concept not the example) - is it your fault for making them sick or their fault for having a retarded diet?


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
You like to rally against regulatory capture and cite is as prime evidence against "big government". You are absolutely right - it is huge problem.

My understanding of libertarianism is that insider trading isn't condoned.

Now what do you suggest we do about information capture than happens in the absence of regulation? Free Market can't function if large number of actors are at substantial information disadvantage. With enough effort you can convince large number of people that Black is White and make money doing so. This is like insider trading, but on much larger scale.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6

If you can convince people that Black is White, does that not by its very nature preclude govt intervention? Markets, like modern progressive governance are democratic.

I think you are implying a false distinction here, by seeming to assert that Govts remain unswayed by this type of activity where markets do not.

Once you enshrine pre-emptive powers in govt hands, this type of media assault simply ends with calling Black as Black and White as White illegal. See how you arent allowed to claim on the packaging of certain meats that you "dont" use certain chemicals/feed/techniques for one example.

As much as anything, I see moral hazard where Govt assures people something is safe for example - but it really isnt. People offload responsibility for making good decisions and vetting products to Govt, which inherently turns it into a political battle subject to powerful influences.

Where as a Consumer Reports type organization can turn a profit by being independent and relying on their customers - and as long as the Govt fulfills its proper role and protects Consumer Reports from undue threat - legal or physical - there is no problem.

If there is information that is pertinent to uses of a product, then there is a market for that information.

Of course this is talking in the area of what I would call "soft" regulation, covering things like generally safe foods (whether you think eating too much is unhealthy or not, and it probably is, corn sugar is still generally safe. ) Things like Nuclear Power and such obviously need a higher degree of oversight.

Yes there are ways to tell the difference between the types.

Thats not to say that no regulation has ever had a net positive, or that total deregulation of anything and everything is some sort of utopia.

But again, we are back to the fundamental question of how and who should decide what goes and what does not.

What the Govt has basically done, especially in certain sectors is create a virtual monopoly on the information brokerage... or should we say the trust brokerage. If the Govt says something is safe, then the product can be sold and torts become extremely difficult if not impossible. Not only does it allow power politics to interfere with proper dissemination of the knowledge you are talking about - it artificially shrinks the market for dissenting information, as fewer people are willing to invest in trusted 3rd parties to provide unbiased evaluations. It leads people to trust where they should not, in many cases.

If you know something is dangerous, and do not report it that should be a felony that is enforced. The same as if you know a guy robbed a bank and dont report it.

People have to make decisions without total knowledge. I do not think there is a way around this.

I do not see how any means of organizing society or economic can change this. As P T Barnum once said, there is a sucker born every minute. While certain abuses and misbehavior can certainly be punished after the fact, I fail to see how anyone could reasonably expect to ever write enough laws or regulation to prevent the predators from finding new ways to fleece the sheep.

The only improvement I can see, is educating people... in effect creating fewer sheep.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted By: Derid

I think you are implying a false distinction here, by seeming to assert that Govts remain unswayed by this type of activity where markets do not.


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.

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.

Quote:
But again, we are back to the fundamental question of how and who should decide what goes and what does not.


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

Last edited by sini; 03/12/13 06:06 AM.

[Linked Image]
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,716
KGB Supreme Knight
King's High Council
****
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
King's High Council
****
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,716
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.
This is perhaps the biggest fundamental difference between us. You believe that intentions matter. I believe that results matter.

You are also making the assertion that government is altruistic and most of the rest of us recognize that this is just plain wrong. Government is composed of people and and all their flaws. All government really is is a massive machine of force used by a few to force their views on the many. You're right that our representative government has mechanisms in place for the citizenry to enact change, but that requires the citizenry to stay informed, and, by in large, ours doesn't.


[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
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)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted By: Derid

Why do you wish to apply govt force to this though?


Because I see Government as lesser evil. As a whole, govt is not out to intentionally screw anybody. Yes, it happens anyways.

Quote:
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?


This is not as simple question as you might imagine.

Humans are not neutral, unbiased or even always acting in owns best self-interest. Evolution dragged in a lot of baggage, as such your fundamental assumption of rational self-interested player is flawed. Combine this with flawed assumption of perfect information and you "free market" palace is built on sand.

Now to corn sugar example. Humans are hard-wired to prefer sweetness. Sweeter is universally valued as better. High fructose corn sweetener taste less sweet than alternatives, as such it takes significantly more calories to get to the same sweetness level. Is this the fault of corn sweetener producer? No, blame is so distributed between all players that it is easy to make individual case of innocence.

Still, you have a systemic problem where people get trained to eat sweet things and then pumped with sugar until our healthcare system collapses from treating diabetes and obesity.

Last edited by sini; 03/12/13 09:52 AM.

[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
—C. S. Lewis


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Ideology and pragmatism don't intersect.

-Sini


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6

I dont consider that to be an "ideology" but rather Lewis made an insightful observation.

Honestly I consider the type of society you would construct, as I understand it, as the most terrifying of all dystopian outcomes.

Basically I consider your views to be one and a same with religion. The other side of the coin, and to be sure your eyes will never meet - indeed always facing in opposite directions. But the body is one and the same. The body of thought that the conviction of your own righteousness allows one to stand above all others and demand obedience through force, for the good of the subjects.

It is a society devoid of human dignity, an embodiment of the darkest facets of our nature.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Derid 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5