The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central When money unchecked influence...

Interesting. Its an unregulated market with no oversight, and yet you were able to figure out that the claims are bogus. Kinda gives the lie to your claim that people can't figure out the truth...

For the record, the invisible hand of the market only works correctly when the people are moral. If you're going to reference "The Wealth of Nations" then you need to reference the foundational document as well, "Theory of Moral Sentiments".

So long as we're clear. You think half the population should do what you tell them and you want to run society. Got it. I believe what you're looking for is socialism/communism. There are several places around the world where they haven't yet figured out that this system always fails. Feel free to take your grand plans over there and leave us out of it.

What about the 53% of Americans that didn't figure it out? In your world they are fucked.

The question is how far do you go with regards to taking responsibility for other people. A question you need to ask, is are you saving people from some outside force - or are you saving them from themselves. Without answering that question, you cannot begin to start contemplating just solutions, because justice looks different in each scenario.

As I said, no sport can function without referees and regulations. I would consider the same thing for all markets. You should be held to a standard of truth, where as what you say and claim, you will ultimately be held accountable.

The idea that you can have a free unregulated market is as preposterous as the thought of the NFL with no rules or referees.

Derid, "most people, most of the time" seems like a good start. We don't have to idiot-proof every system, but we have to make sure it is simple enough that we can assume that most people get it right.

Specifically, when it comes to information, there is no excuse. Right seem to object to government actions, I don't think this should extend to government informing people.

In this specific case, if McD caught muddying waters - they should be made an example of. McD should be free to sell deep fried turds, people should be free to eat these turds, but NOBODY should be free to pretend deep fried turds are anything but deep fried turds.

Stupid and ignorant are two different things. Only the progressive elitist lump them together.

WE AGREE!!!!!!!!!! Now we just have to figure out how to make that happen without the rule nazis doing things like Bloomberg in New York telling folks they can't have large sodas or the folks in nearly every state that insist I'm somehow putting someone else at risk by not wearing my seat belt.

I think, Smoking and Tobacco industry, is a good example. Unless you are a minor, you can freely buy and consume. Still, at this point everyone is aware it is harmful, and this "everyone" was achieved via government-sponsored education and mandatory packaging regulation.

Maybe if McD packaging had to include picture of obese people in hospitals people would take health warning more seriously?

Tobacco industry had doctors peddle "health benefits" of smoking. How was it stopped? a) Research showing otherwise b) Gov't threatening to revoke MD licenses for ignoring this research.

Typical progressive attack, place the blame on a corporation and not the individual. You can eat nothing but McD all day for the rest of your life and be healthy.
People have known long before the government ads that smoking was bad. People still know its bad and still smoke after the government ads, so that means the ads don't work.

When you say put the obese people in the hospitals on ads do you mean the people working at the hospital or the patients because if you go by size you will have a hard time figuring out which is which.

Restrictions on acceptable behavior, even in regards to markets is not - as I have pointed out in the past -, necessarily un-libertarian.

If we are going to talk food, some cases for illustration:

Eating a hamburger is (barring extreme allergy) not going to kill anyone. It should not be proscribed for anyone to serve or eat hamburgers. If you eat nothing but, or too many hamburgers of course that might not be healthy. There is still nothing wrong with the hamburger, the problem lies with a person making poor dietary choices for themselves.

Maybe you feel bad for them, but so what. Tell them it is not healthy, see if they listen.

Now maybe someone is going around spending money saying that eating nothing but hamburgers is healthy. The problem still does not lie with the existence, or serving of a hamburger. The problem lies with the person committing fraud by claiming eating nothing but hamburgers is healthy.

Thus taking action to redress the fraud is just just as taking action to repudiate paid-off doctors who perpetrated a lie that smoking was healthy was just, however regulating hamburger production or consumption is not - because there is still nothing wrong with the hamburger.

----

Now maybe the hamburger is of particularly low quality, and is therefore making people ill. Maybe its made from sick cows, or maybe its actually marketed as beef but is really rat.

Well levying a tax to pay for food monitoring, inspections, and specialized officials trained and equipped to investigate and redress or bring to justice those who by intent or negligence serve up tainted, poisoned or misrepresented food is also a proper function of government or society.

---

What is not a just or proper function of society or govt is to persecute someone who makes or serves a perfectly good hamburger, simply because they may have created one more of an always-infinite number of avenues by which the willfully ignorant or simply uncaring individual may abuse themselves.