What value freedom?

[Lava]

Originally posted by Leopard, hmmm, my 'vision'? well, my vision would be each person to be free to live their lives in the manner they desire as long as it doesn't encroach upon the same freedom of others to do so. This says nothing about just the freedom to harm oneself - I don't think that it is human nature to do so and most people will not willingly choose this course of action.

I was thinking smoking is still very popular, maybe I'm completely mistaken. Or maybe youre incorrect, because again you fail to take ignorance and easy manipulation into account. Over and over the smart dont get just how dim the dim are.

As far as harming others, that is not what I advocate - covered in the 'do not encroach upon others' above...

But it is the inevitable result of your proposed actions, even if your words say otherwise. If you remove all building regulations, people will will act in ignorance, and people will get harmed. If you permit drunk driving, as used to be the case, people will die. The vision you espouse sounds like 'freedom', but when you look at just what it is the freedom to do, the results are fairly predictable, as we've seen them all in the past.

I believe that involuntary slavery is immoral. Each person owns, at the very least, their own life. This implies that they also own the 'fruits of their labors'. Imposing a coerced obligation upon folks which strips them of some measure of their wealth (taxation), or restricts their ownership of their property (zoning, eminent domain, business regulations, etc) is a direct theft (however miniscule) of the 'fruits of their labors' and thus a mild form of slavery. For instance, you are my slave if I hold a gun to your head and force you to hand over a percentage of your income, every day, for your entire life.

but if otoh you dont do that, there wont be the resources requierd to implement expert controls on the market which largely prevent actions causing much greater damage. There is no perfect system, each has its pros and cons. While I agree with you on some things, your vision would produce great inefficiency and harm for people, primarily resulting from the free and widespread application of irresponsibility and ignorance.

I am also pretty confident that I understand human action and how humans interact within a free market so having the 'freedom' to get suckered by some quack doctor or unethical businessman becomes not scarey to me since I know there are methods and ways that folks organize to minimize )if not alleviate altogether) these 'bad apples'.

most dont. This is a thriving busines sector here in England. I am equally confident you do not understand how people act.

Fact is, quacks will not stay in business long if people were responsible for their actions, and businesses which practiced unethical or even poor service would quickly vanish from the market due to lack of customers.

Yet the facts of reality disagree with you. Why is that?

Freedom promotes responsibility for self and others. Government dependence has the reverse effect.

to some extent I'd agree, but only some. Our quack health sector is mostly unregulated, and reality simply does not line up with what you say - at all.


Regards, Lava

[Leopard]

I gotta Luv ya, friend Lava!

[quote=Lava,]

Quote by: Leopard, hmmm, my 'vision'? well, my vision would be each person to be free to live their lives in the manner they desire as long as it doesn't encroach upon the same freedom of others to do so.  This says nothing about just the freedom to harm oneself - I don't think that it is human nature to do so and most people will not willingly choose this course of action.

I was thinking smoking is still very popular, maybe I'm completely mistaken. Or maybe youre incorrect, because again you fail to take ignorance and easy manipulation into account. Over and over the smart dont get just how dim the dim are.[quote]
LOL! right up my 'dim' alley! Yes, I AM a smoker, and I do realize the 'hazards' of smoking, but there are also other things to consider. Tell me, since I am a smoker, and I smoke 1 pack a day ever since I was 20 yrs old (am now 38 or 39, forget which - probably lost some memory due to smoking...LOL!) , when exactly am I going to die? Can't tell me, huh? Ok then, lets go with statistics: How much have I reduced my chances of reaching the ripe age of 75? What are the chances of my geting cancer and what would they be if I never smoked OR if I quit next year? Ok, that is all very important information, but it STILL doesn't provide enough to make a decision yet...
Now tell me how much enjoyment I get from smoking? Tell me how much I value that enjoyment and how it compares to my perception of the increased risk to my health? hmmm, pretty hard for you to do, huh? Well, sure, you can call me stupid, but thats just an opinion - I could EASILY outlive you (a supposed non-smoker) AND have had whatever increased benefits I percieve that I obtained from smoking my entire life - that result doesn't sound too stupid, does it?

I know there are 'dim' folks out there, and sometimes I am one of them. I make stupid decisions ALL THE TIME. I happen to learn from some of them, and need to repeat other mistakes until either I die OR finally change my perception of reality. This process of trial and error is true for everyone, even the eternally 'dim'. They may not learn as quickly, or if at all, from their mistakes. But they will learn more from their mistakes IF they are allowed to make them - it is VERY hard, harder still for dimmer people, to learn just by being told, or from a book. We need physical reinforcement, sometimes associated with punishment (either natural consequences - the best teacher, or by 'false consequences' like getting a spanking for burning your hand on the stove - still a decent teacher, but debatable).

The point is that we make rational decisions about our lives based on information we understand at the time. These decisions may be wrong and we do not achieve the outcome we expected. We then have the opportunity to modify our little worldview and make different decisions next time. We learn. We grow. And as a race in general, we continue to improve our ability to make better decisions... unless this is stripped from us through removing responsibility.

But it is the inevitable result of your proposed actions, even if your words say otherwise. If you remove all building regulations, people will will act in ignorance, and people will get harmed. If you permit drunk driving, as used to be the case, people will die. The vision you espouse sounds like 'freedom', but when you look at just what it is the freedom to do, the results are fairly predictable, as we've seen them all in the past.

Building regulations: You really don't see that these regulations came from the private sector in the first place? People simply do not like living in a house which might fall down upon them and their families at any moment. If no 'building regulations' were imposed by the government, do you think people would just throw their hands up in the air and exclaim, "Hell with it! I will just get what I get and if it falls down, thats life." You have a funny view of humans, sir! Myself, I would look into the background of the contractor or homebuilder I was choosing to see their record for 'housing that falls down or catches on fire', I might not know alot about construction so I would hire someone to overlook the building (a private inspector possibly) to make sure that he thinks its made correctly and with good quality materials. I might not have the time to do all this research and just pay a Consumer advocacy organization for the information they have summarily compiled and go with their recommendations. I bet ya that the building that is finally constructed will fit MY needs for safety and cost BETTER than one in todays interventionist market.

Drunk driving is another matter altogether and is not in the same catagory - first, there is the matter of 'who owns the road' - if 'public' then sure there are going to be restrictions as determined by 'the public' (whatever that is), if it is a 'private' road, then the owner may have his own set of restrictions, ones that reflect the desires of the market of drivers which would probably include a restriction on Drunk Driving as no one like to subject themselves to the negligence of others - in fact, if Drunk Driving were such a concern in the market, then road owners would probably have some sort of breathilizer test before allowing any drivers on their road - in this manner they can GUARANTEE NO DRUNK DRIVING INCIDENTS... something that the government simply cannot do, unless, of course, you desire a complete police state or marshal law invoked...

I do not have the time to continue this particular post... perhaps I will answer your remaining questions/suppositions later...

michael

[Lava]

[quote=Leopard,]I gotta Luv ya, friend Lava!

[quote=Lava,]

Quote by: Leopard, hmmm, my 'vision'? well, my vision would be each person to be free to live their lives in the manner they desire as long as it doesn't encroach upon the same freedom of others to do so.  This says nothing about just the freedom to harm oneself - I don't think that it is human nature to do so and most people will not willingly choose this course of action.

I was thinking smoking is still very popular, maybe I'm completely mistaken. Or maybe youre incorrect, because again you fail to take ignorance and easy manipulation into account. Over and over the smart dont get just how dim the dim are.

LOL! right up my 'dim' alley! Yes, I AM a smoker, and I do realize the 'hazards' of smoking, but there are also other things to consider. Tell me, since I am a smoker, and I smoke 1 pack a day ever since I was 20 yrs old (am now 38 or 39, forget which - probably lost some memory due to smoking...LOL!) , when exactly am I going to die? Can't tell me, huh? Ok then, lets go with statistics: How much have I reduced my chances of reaching the ripe age of 75? What are the chances of my geting cancer and what would they be if I never smoked OR if I quit next year? Ok, that is all very important information, but it STILL doesn't provide enough to make a decision yet... Now tell me how much enjoyment I get from smoking? Tell me how much I value that enjoyment and how it compares to my perception of the increased risk to my health? hmmm, pretty hard for you to do, huh? Well, sure, you can call me stupid, but thats just an opinion - I could EASILY outlive you (a supposed non-smoker) AND have had whatever increased benefits I percieve that I obtained from smoking my entire life - that result doesn't sound too stupid, does it?

Sorry, I didnt mean to call you stupid: its obvious to me youre not. Taking up smoking might not have been the smartest move though : ) Like you say, we all make decisions we would do differently later.

Smoking is something of a not normal example, as it is addiction. Thats a subject I know something about. I hesitate to get into it as its really another thread. In short I think theres a lot more to it than either of us has mentioned so far, and I dont buy your claim that addiction is worthwhile.

I watch things people do day in day out, and they do act to harm themselves, time and time again. Smoking is just one of the clearer examples - although you personally choose a rather debated pov, so its not a clear example for you. Have to think of another.

I know there are 'dim' folks out there, and sometimes I am one of them. I make stupid decisions ALL THE TIME. I happen to learn from some of them, and need to repeat other mistakes until either I die OR finally change my perception of reality. This process of trial and error is true for everyone, even the eternally 'dim'. They may not learn as quickly, or if at all, from their mistakes. But they will learn more from their mistakes IF they are allowed to make them -

but when the rate of learning is low enough, people either will not survive their own mistakes, or will survive but pay inhumanely for them. There simply isnt a moral reason to choose such an inhumane society. And a LOT of people are incapable when it comes to figuring stuff out and learning. 1 in 20 of the population is classified by psychometricians as mentally retarded, and 50% as below average. Whatever ones chosen threshold, somewhere between 5% and 50% are serious dimwits. Welfare claimants have an average IQ of 80, which means half of them are below that. I think this is one of the big issues with your views, that you really dont get how stupid many folk are.

One of the greatest disservices our edu system does people IMHO is to teach them that if they play by the (government) rules theyre 'safe'. (in Britain) This is so plainly not the case, and millions die every year as a result of their own not very smart actions. AND they are all too often none the wiser, when they could have prevented the outcome. The blame is not to be laid at the feet of government control, but education, it is the education they received that misleads them so. And the people are not awake enough to see it, they are even less knowledgeable than the experts followed by the government.

The point is that we make rational decisions about our lives based on information we understand at the time. These decisions may be wrong and we do not achieve the outcome we expected. We then have the opportunity to modify our little worldview and make different decisions next time. We learn. We grow. And as a race in general, we continue to improve our ability to make better decisions... unless this is stripped from us through removing responsibility.

The point is people are NOT rational, we just like to think we/they are. Secondly fwiw it is impossible to strip resopnsibility: people are responsible for themelseves regardless of what system they live in. The existence of government regulation does not change that.

Building regulations: You really don't see that these regulations came from the private sector in the first place? People simply do not like living in a house which might fall down upon them and their families at any moment. If no 'building regulations' were imposed by the government, do you think people would just throw their hands up in the air and exclaim, "Hell with it! I will just get what I get and if it falls down, thats life." You have a funny view of humans, sir! Myself, I would look into the background of the contractor or homebuilder I was choosing to see their record for 'housing that falls down or catches on fire', I might not know alot about construction so I would hire someone to overlook the building (a private inspector possibly) to make sure that he thinks its made correctly and with good quality materials. I might not have the time to do all this research and just pay a Consumer advocacy organization for the information they have summarily compiled and go with their recommendations. I bet ya that the building that is finally constructed will fit MY needs for safety and cost BETTER than one in todays interventionist market.

Once again you present the smart persons solution, and overloook the fact you are far from average. The reality observed again and again is that most people dont so that, they dont ask questions, they dont think ahead, and in many cases even when theyve been stung they cant see it!

Drunk driving is another matter altogether and is not in the same catagory - first, there is the matter of 'who owns the road' - if 'public' then sure there are going to be restrictions as determined by 'the public' (whatever that is), if it is a 'private' road, then the owner may have his own set of restrictions, ones that reflect the desires of the market of drivers which would probably include a restriction on Drunk Driving as no one like to subject themselves to the negligence of others - in fact, if Drunk Driving were such a concern in the market, then road owners would probably have some sort of breathilizer test before allowing any drivers on their road - in this manner they can GUARANTEE NO DRUNK DRIVING INCIDENTS... something that the government simply cannot do, unless, of course, you desire a complete police state or marshal law invoked...

A nice optimistic model, and that model may occur. But if roads are in private ownership, there will be all kinds of models operated, therefore drunk driving will be allowed freely and people will die. Given how much profit matters, and how little the majority of the population cares about others, inevitably 'who gives a' roads will predominate. People will die.


Core issues:
1. a free market means the majority of sales and services will be based on a 'who gives a ---' model, and death and misery will result.
2. You greatly overestimate most peoples mental abilities. Intelligent people always do.


Regards, Lava

[Leopard]

Lava,
You claim that stupid people are different from 'ordinary' folks. I agree, they are stupid. And you suggest that they therefore cannot and most often do not learn from their mistakes. I say they do, but at perhaps slower or reduced rates of learning. So how exactly does government help the situation?
For instance, back to Drunk Driving. If, as you say, stupid people will not learn from the examples of others, the culture around them where all the average and above average people say 'Drunk driving is Bad!', and they will then drive drunk anyways... Why do you expect these stupid people to obey drunk driving laws? They will drive drunk, stuff their fingers into electrical outlets, and eat raw lye no matter what other people (government or friends, family) tell them, right? So, if I understand you correctly - the only people who are going to obey the law are the ones who don't need the law in the first place? Yet, these people are forced to pay for the 'attempted' education of the stupid, gonna drink and drive anyways, folks. If you claim that laws are not a replacement for education, they are for punishment/justice - then you seem to be advocating putting all 'sub-standard' folks into prison, since, as you claim, they cannot learn, and do not have the ability to determine if a particular action will be harmful to themselves or others...

The point is people are NOT rational, we just like to think we/they are.

People do not always make correct choices, that is true, even from their own perspectives and values. Just because I choose to drive at 150mph around a tight mountain curve in order to get to my destination faster, does NOT mean that my action was 'irrational' - I did make a rational choice, the fact that I did not interpret the information I had to make that choice correctly does not make me irrational. Irrational is on par with being insane, and I am sure you have heard the quip about the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and continuing to expect a different result to occur. That is being irrational. We are 'mostly' rational - even retarded folks will learn rather quickly not to place their hand on a hot stove after being burned once or a few times.

Secondly fwiw it is impossible to strip resopnsibility: people are responsible for themelseves regardless of what system they live in. The existence of government regulation does not change that.

untrue. If there is no government healthcare, then I am responsible for my own health. If the government provides my healthcare for me be taxing others and paying for it, then I have no responsibility in its effect. just as a prisoner is not responsible for his meals if he is forced to eat food provided for him.

It sounds to me that you consider most of the population to be dullards, unable to care for themselves or learn or make good decisions based on their situations. And so it becomes incumbent upon the remaining 'smart people' to assume a basically 'paternal' role and dictate/control the lives of these poor, stupid folks. You understand that if this is the type of society we create through governmental force and taxation, the obvious 'rational' response the 'smarties' will make is to seperate themselves from this setup of slavery and abandon the society altogether (for reference, see the 'Brain Drain' from the East to the West during the cold war - intelligence will always recognize slavery before others and the natural inclination will be to distance oneself from it).

I have found that 'intelligence' is not a requirement to live or survive - and in fact, sometimes not having high intelligence can be of great benefit... the old saying 'ignorance is bliss' has alot of truth to it. I think that, in general, a person of lower intelligence is able to be more satisfied by cheaper forms of entertainment, that they are less susceptible to the intense uneasiness caused by repetition, and they are easily able to excel and compete in activities which interest them. they are just as human as any 'smartie' that I know. But most importantly, they can learn and grow, at their own pace just like all of us, and they can make rational choices and good choices which can bring about their happiness. I would not deny them their ability to live as a free being - its the only thing we have in life.

michael

[Lava]

Now I see I need to explain.


> Lava,
> You claim that stupid people are different from 'ordinary' folks.
> I agree, they are stupid. And you suggest that they therefore cannot
> and most often do not learn from their mistakes.

no and no.

What I'm saying is:



1. All of us are ignorant in most areas of life. The worlds knowledge is simply way too vast for us to become knowledgeable in many subjects. When the professor of electronics buys electronics, he knows his stuff. But whe he buys everything else, he dont. He does not know the issues, and can not make an informed choice.

2. The brighter ones will sometimes buy reports on companies or products before buying, but
a) its not practical to do this for too many items
b) many of these consumer reports are a load of anyway

3. Now, what about the bulk of the population, life's non experts? They wont have a good level of knowledge on anything they buy. They will probably get consumer reports on a few of the biggest purchases, like houses, but will simply swallow them whole without question, regarding them as 'expert authorities on the subject'. They will fail to understand the many problems with these reports, some of which are of no real value at all.

4. Now what about lifes dimwits? It wont even occur to them to get consumer reports, or to lay down written specs for the house they buy. They will get a price and get whatever they get, problems and dangers and all. When they complain they'll be fobbed off, confused and played. They wont know the way out of the confusion, and wont understand the issues and dangers. As well as being used and stung, houses will collapse, wiring will electrocute and catch fire, floors will give way, roofs cave in, sharp edges cut, and people will get injured, suffer and die.

5. Finally what about lifes subnormal, the 1 in 20 who can live independantly but not much more. They will be prey to every unsatisfactory and dangerous product out there. They will be the laughing stock of every dodgy seller, they will be conned used abused and killed by lethal products and practices. They will keep losing out in a market populated by folk 30 or 50 IQ points ahead of them.


My point is that _none_ of us is upto making expert quality decisions on everything we buy. Not even Mr Einstein. Today we have numerous regulations drawn up mostly by experts, nearly everything we buy has expertise invested in it, and law to prevent a whole slew of bad practices.

The biggest difference your vision will make is that the market place will be flooded with products and services that turn out to be very costly down the line, dont work properly, hurt people, and kill them.


Whats the value of that??


Regards, Lava

[Lava]

>> The point is people are NOT rational, we just like to think we/they are.

> Irrational is on par with being insane,

They are 2 distinct things, though certainly related. The great majority of human beings are not rational. Just go read some newgroup debates. The only thing that tells most folk we are is ego and lack of seeing why not. I debate with assorted folk as one of my jobs, and omg I can assure you, critical thinking is a) a complete mystery, and b) they cant think why anyone would even want to be able to. The reasons given for things are not as you suggest less than ideal, the rational process simply isnt there.


> We are 'mostly' rational - even retarded folks will learn rather quickly not to place their hand on a hot stove after being burned once or a few times.

Unfortunately it takes a lot more than that to make it in this world. A whole lot more.


> It sounds to me that you consider most of the population to be dullards, unable to care for themselves or learn or make good decisions based on their situations. And so it becomes incumbent upon the remaining 'smart people' to assume a basically 'paternal' role and dictate/control the lives of these poor, stupid folks.

no, but theres an element in there. We are ALL uninformed about the issues relevant to numerous decisions in our life. We are not capable of making good informed decisions, we dont have 8 lifetimes to get that informed. This is why we greatly benefit from expertise built into every product, as it is today.


> I have found that 'intelligence' is not a requirement to live or survive

of course it is. Youre familiar with evolution I'm sure. I dont know if youre familiar with the fact that death rates are several times as high among below average than above average IQers, in many areas of life. Or you could look at the leading causes of death today and see how many of them involve an intelligence element - nearly all.


> the old saying 'ignorance is bliss' has alot of truth to it.

nope, ignorance results in suffering.


> I think that, in general, a person of lower intelligence is able to be more satisfied by cheaper forms of entertainment, that they are less susceptible to the intense uneasiness caused by repetition,

yes, the one real advantage


> and they are easily able to excel and compete in activities which interest them.

people of low intelligence cant excell, period. They have to make peace with that, though many dont. They can compete but not effectively, they lose out pretty much every time. Its no mere coincidence that the prison population is of well below average IQ. When you fail at everything you do, great emotional dis-ease sets in, so does desperation, so does blame and hate. Hence crime and accidents rates are way higher among these people.


> they are just as human as any 'smartie' that I know.

course. doesnt make them able to make good desisions though.


> But most importantly, they can learn and grow, at their own pace just like all of us, and they can make rational choices and good choices which can bring about their happiness.

cough cough, you are optimistic. Low intelligence means lack of ability to solve problems, thats what it is. Problems like finding happiness and satisfaction in life, and paying all the bills.


> I would not deny them their ability to live as a free being - its the only thing we have in life.

The only bits currently denied them are the ability to be sold stuff that will cost them badly down the line, injure them, piss them off and let them down, and in some cases kill them and those they love. They have their other freedoms already.


Regards, Lava

[Leopard]

basically, from what I can tell, you are stating that people of greater intelligence should be granted the right to make decisions over people of determined lesser intelligence... woud you agree?

[Lava]

>> The point is people are NOT rational, we just like to think we/they are.

> Irrational is on par with being insane,

They are 2 distinct things, though clearly related. The great majority of human beings are not rational. Just go read some newgroup debates. The only thing that tells most folk we are is ego and lack of seeing why not. I debate with assorted folk as one of my jobs, and omg I can assure you, critical thinking is a) a complete mystery, and b) they cant think why anyone would even want to be able to. The reasons given for things are not as you suggest less than ideal, the rational process simply isnt there to any adequate extent.


> We are 'mostly' rational - even retarded folks will learn rather quickly not to place their hand on a hot stove after being burned once or a few times.

Unfortunately it takes a lot more than that to make it in this world. A whole lot more.


> It sounds to me that you consider most of the population to be dullards, unable to care for themselves or learn or make good decisions based on their situations. And so it becomes incumbent upon the remaining 'smart people' to assume a basically 'paternal' role and dictate/control the lives of these poor, stupid folks.

no, but theres an element in there. We are ALL uninformed about the issues relevant to numerous decisions in our life. We are not capable of making good informed decisions, we dont have 8 lifetimes to get that informed. This is why we greatly benefit from expertise built into every product, as it is today.


> I have found that 'intelligence' is not a requirement to live or survive

of course it is. Youre familiar with evolution I'm sure. I dont know if youre familiar with the fact that death rates are several times as high among below average than above average IQers, in many areas of life. Or you could look at the leading causes of death today and see how many of them involve an intelligence element - nearly all.


> the old saying 'ignorance is bliss' has alot of truth to it.

nope, ignorance results in suffering.


> I think that, in general, a person of lower intelligence is able to be more satisfied by cheaper forms of entertainment, that they are less susceptible to the intense uneasiness caused by repetition,

yes, the one real advantage (if we exclude the cheaper forms bit).


> and they are easily able to excel and compete in activities which interest them.

people of low intelligence cant excell, period. They have to make peace with that, though many dont. They can compete but not effectively, they lose out pretty much every time. Its no mere coincidence that the prison population is of well below average IQ. When you fail at everything you do, great emotional dis-ease sets in, so does desperation, so does blame and hate. Hence crime and accidents rates are way higher among these people.


> they are just as human as any 'smartie' that I know.

course. doesnt make them able to make good desisions though.


> But most importantly, they can learn and grow, at their own pace just like all of us, and they can make rational choices and good choices which can bring about their happiness.

cough cough, you are optimistic. Low intelligence means lack of ability to solve problems, thats what it is. Problems like finding happiness and satisfaction in life, and paying all the bills.


> I would not deny them their ability to live as a free being - its the only thing we have in life.

The only bits currently denied them are the ability to be sold stuff that will cost them badly down the line, injure them, piss them off and let them down, and in some cases kill them and those they love. They have their other freedoms already.


Regards, Lava

[Lava]

Originally posted by Leopard, basically, from what I can tell, you are stating that people of greater intelligence should be granted the right to make decisions over people of determined lesser intelligence... woud you agree?

I thought Id just explained why that was not quite it