And, of course, the people rose up and swept their members from office, furious that their choices in paint were restricted.

Oh wait.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You have much too much faith in the people's ability to know what their represenatives are doing. If they had heard about it, I doubt this light bulb ban would have happened to begin with.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So they can't keep tabs on what's going on in politics, but you think people can be trusted to take care of investigating every aspect of their daily lives for possible threats, toxins, and things that should not be as they are?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, because people are significantly self-interested.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The government has superior compulsion mechanisms and the ability to force industry standards to conform to what these people want.

It can conduct the tests closer to the source, and it can impose consequences on those who do use lead paint in spite of legal restrictions (which also would make it easier to recover civil damages).

This will cost the individual significantly less (since taxes are not evenly distributed), at least from his perspective, which means he'll still be able to get some testing done if he is particularly concerned.

It will also significantly raise the cost of getting and using lead paint, thus reducing the benefits of doing so and slowly encouraging a shift toward a point where the individual will be able to be confident that encountering lead paint is unlikely.

So, clearly, the self-interested thing to do is to get the government to regulate.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The government has superior compulsion mechanisms and the ability to force industry standards to conform to what these people want.

I don't know if I can agree to that, logically or historically.

This will cost the individual significantly less (since taxes are not evenly distributed), at least from his perspective, which means he'll still be able to get some testing done if he is particularly concerned.

At the expense of non-monetary ideals, yes.

So, clearly, the self-interested thing to do is to get the government to regulate.

You don't get to decide what's in anyone else's self-interest, as the key word there is not "interest," but "self."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't know if I can agree to that, logically or historically.

Individual vs. corporation. Corporation typically wins.
Individual vs. government. Government typically wins.
Government vs. Corporation. It depends.

I know who I want on my side.

At the expense of non-monetary ideals, yes.

The self-interested man should not be so concerned with ideals. After all, they're intangible, unreliable, and get in the way of you taking maximum advantage of situations.

You don't get to decide what's in anyone else's self-interest, as the key word there is not "interest," but "self."

Leaving aside that I must get to decide what's in my own...

I just demonstrated how it is in the self-interest of a lot of people to get the government to regulate. Including people who are using the solutions you propose. Perhaps you should explain why it is in people's self interest to not regulate? I've just demonstrated that it'll be cheaper - please explain why they should accept the considerably increased cost of living and stress when they could reduce them in exchange for being unable to exercise an option that most never would use?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Individual vs. corporation. Corporation typically wins.

That assumes both sides should win an equal number of times, or that there's a conflict to begin with.

Individual vs. government. Government typically wins.

Which is a great reason to reduce their power, since this should not be in conflict.

Government vs. Corporation. It depends.

Not as much as you think. The government defaults to winning simply by having so power and regulatory strength.

I know who I want on my side.

And in a case where neither the government nor the corporation has gained my trust, the answer would be the one I actually have more power over - not nameless, appointed, unaccountable bureaucrats but rather the ability to vote with my wallet.

The self-interested man should not be so concerned with ideals. After all, they're intangible, unreliable, and get in the way of you taking maximum advantage of situations.

In fact, the non-monetary ideals are the most important things the self-interested man has. You can still lose all your money, but still have your identity as a human being.

I just demonstrated how it is in the self-interest of a lot of people to get the government to regulate.

You asserted, yes.

Perhaps you should explain why it is in people's self interest to not regulate?

As I've said before, it reduces freedom, reduces responsibility, reduces ability. Those three things alone trump most of the arguments for me to begin with.

I've just demonstrated that it'll be cheaper

Asserted monetarily, yes. Cost is not limited to financial matters.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Which is a great reason to reduce their power, since this should not be in conflict.

We should abolish the criminal law?

Not as much as you think. The government defaults to winning simply by having so power and regulatory strength.

Yes. That was rather my point.

In fact, the non-monetary ideals are the most important things the self-interested man has. You can still lose all your money, but still have your identity as a human being.

And yet, your identity as a human being will avail you precisely dick when you grow up unable to even conceive of your own existence because somebody used lead-based paint in your parents' house...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

We should abolish the criminal law?

Much of it, yes. But that's a different discussion.

Then again, seeing as selling light bulbs that the government deems improper is a criminal matter now...

Yes. That was rather my point.

And yet you want to give them more!

And yet, your identity as a human being will avail you precisely dick when you grow up unable to even conceive of your own existence because somebody used lead-based paint in your parents' house...

A great emotional argument, for sure, but it does nothing to disprove my point.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Of course not. Your point is a meaningless emotional appeal in its own right.

You are, basically, asking people to trade definite things for the emotional and intangible benefits of being free.

That sounds rather emotionally-driven to me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Of course not. Your point is a meaningless emotional appeal in its own right.

How so?

You are, basically, asking people to trade definite things for the emotional and intangible benefits of being free.

Not at all. I'm asking people to instead embrace their freedom as opposed to giving it away in exchange for this myth of security that is being peddled. That's not emotional at all.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Because freedom means different things to different people. Further to that, you're not explaining why it is better to be free. Your argument consists of "you'll be more free".

It's certainly not based on reason.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Because freedom means different things to different people. Further to that, you're not explaining why it is better to be free. Your argument consists of "you'll be more free".

Wow.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If I have to spend half my life trying to figure out what around me is going to kill me and mine or lead us to an early grave, I'm not free. Not really. I have fewer options and choices, not more.

Freedom is not an absolute good. You know this, or you would be cheering on the complete abolition of government. Thus, more of it is not an argument in and of itself.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Freedom is not an absolute good. You know this, or you would be cheering on the complete abolition of government. Thus, more of it is not an argument in and of itself.

Governing is not incompatible with freedom, however. It's not zero sum.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sure it is. There are two defining features of government - law enforcement (including prosecution, jails, etc) and taxes.

The first restricts our freedom to kill people indiscriminately for kicks.

The second restricts our ability to decide what we want to do with our money. You could try a fee-for-service basis (though that stops it being a government, really). The only option that would seem to remain would be supporting the government through charitable donations. While I think that would be interesting, I don't think it's practical without a government so limited it's not anything even ancient people would recognize as a government.

Government is the restrictions you accept to enjoy the freedoms that remain to you. The question is what you're willing to give up.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sure it is. There are two defining features of government - law enforcement (including prosecution, jails, etc) and taxes.

"Enforcement," however, often has to deal with making sure said freedoms are not infringed upon.

Government is the restrictions you accept to enjoy the freedoms that remain to you. The question is what you're willing to give up.

I think we're on significantly different pages here on a lot of points.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

People aren't allowed to infringe upon other people's freedoms, eh?

And if lead paint infringes on my right to conduct my life in safety?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

And if lead paint infringes on my right to conduct my life in safety?

First, it doesn't. Second, that's an issue that you have that you can solve without the government.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"If I have to spend half my life trying to figure out what around me is going to kill me and mine or lead us to an early grave, I'm not free. "

THIS.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)