I’m going to assume, based on the fact that I can’t imagine you’re being serious without weeping for the future of this once great nation, that you’re kidding about turning a blind eye being morally neutral.

I can live with the holocaust, only because I choose to see the family that hid Ann Frank as an example of humanity’s best people, acting during humanity’s worst time.

I do believe I’ve lost all respect for you.

Which means I’ve learned all I can from this debate, and so you win. You’ve learned nothing, you’ve wasted my time and consideration, and you’ve rendered me silent.

When the Nazis come for you, know this:

I’ll be the guy NOT turning a blind eye.

But good luck to you and your free markets.

“It’s also possible that the optimal system would be making me dictator of the world. You never know.”

Now you know what? You didn’t read to the end. In order to fit my argument you would need to rephrase that into: “if there is a overwhelming majority among legislators, academics and consumers for, let’s say, TGGP as a dictator, and this overwhelming majority lasts from the beginning of TGGP seizing power for over a hundred years until this day, I would say we have good excuse to think it’s a good thing for welfare. ” And that sounds quite different, doesn’t it? Now if you tell me that your subjects are not capable of genuinely being of the opinion that the TGGP dictatorship is best for them you will commit the sin of… paternalism, by all standards.

My apologies Robin.

So what you’re trying to say is that you’re unable to refute the statement as given, and so put it into more ridiculous words that you can better formulate a clever retort to? Interesting. I can see how this helps in an intelligent debate.

Do you believe there are addictions to things other than drugs?

Money. For sure. And I believe that’s a much more destructive addiction.

Once again, I disagree that is inherently the case. It is only because the paper-route kids are relatively well off that they still attend schools and do not take such high risks of injury.

So what you’re saying is that the middle class are not likely to make decisions that put the lives of thier children at risk for pocket change? I agree entirely, which is why we should lessen the effect of poverty on those decisions, and, where necessary, enact legislation to prevent exploitation of that desperation. Imperfect legislation is still better than nothing.

Why is that? Do you hate all white people, or just think that there is a high tendency among them to be deserving of hate?

I kid. Doesn’t taking yourself this seriously get exhausting?

I don’t think that has ever been the case. States have existed about as long as the markets they exist as parasites on.

Still, I’m glad for states. People, too, have a horrid track record of treating people ethically.

I’d say being raised to be slaughtered and eaten sounds worse than whatever condition were in.

Eh. Being electrocuted and eaten, but raised on better food than instinct alone would provide… Sucks, a little bit. Being forced to sell babies (see that? I brought the discussion back to the original concept. What a revolutionary idea!) to eat, with the intelligence to know better, seems worse.

They were certainly more lethal than today (warfare was near constant, even if they weren’t as deadly individually) but that seems an exaggeration.

You can’t eat a mastadon with sophistry. Amazingly, they’re impervious to it.

“Lasted a day” is what we call a “figure of speech.” It’s an exagerration, yes, but commonly accepted as having a seperate meaning. In this case, it means you wouldn’t have survived very long in that environment. Just so you know, next time you hear it.

Hmm, governments have committed genocide (R. J. Rummel calls it democide). What’s the worst corporations have done?

Well, through an interest in profits, they either assist in the genocide, or turn a blind eye.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the very first google result:

Click here

But go ahead, restate that.

Sorry Robin, I agree the posts are drifting pretty far off topic, and I know I’ve had a big part in it. I’m done now. I feel I’ve made my points as clearly as possible.

Quite many people seem to be of the opinion that because regulators are biased and/or people who are pro regulation are biased, regulation is bound to be bad (and biased). However, I’m surprised these guys don’t realize this does not exclude that regulation might, when you sum up all people’s preferences who are affected by that regulation, still increase welfare compared to an unregulated state.
But that doesn’t exclude that the result might still be welfare enhancing.
It’s also possible that the optimal system would be making me dictator of the world. You never know.

So if there is a overwhelming majority among legislators, academics and consumers for, let’s say, antitrust, and this overwhelming majority lasts from it’s beginning for over a hundred years until this day, I would say we have good excuse to think it’s a good thing.
That almost sounds like Bryan Caplan’s argument (well, maybe not the legislators and consumers part). I know he’s against antitrust, but I don’t remember if that was included in the survey of economists opinions. My guess is that they are less in favor of it than the general public.

It could also be pointed out separately that the benefiting effects of antitrust on static (low prices, much production) and dynamic (technological development, competition on merits) welfare combined have been proven and can be proven in scientific terms over and over again.
Really? I wasn’t aware of that. Maybe I shouldn’t be reading so much Tom DiLorenzo.

At this point I wouldn’t be so surprised if somebody came and told me that he/she would be better off without the concept of welfare, voting and politics too.
I am opposed to public assistance, I don’t vote and I am also against politics.

But he also denounces civilization, and gave up on its comforts such as electricity, transportation and spending his time on blogpages in discussions like this.
Then that’s where we differ.

His thinking is consistent with his preferences. Is yours?
Seems to me.

You have a skill for rephrasing an argument in a way that you know it wasn’t intended, so as to appear witty.
I think that it helps to analyze the argument better.

Not directly. However, addiction DOES make a person mentally incompetent, morally nuetral at best, and more likely to make choices, like stealing, to support a habit. Addiction, of course, is made possible by drug running.
Do you believe there are addictions to things other than drugs?

No, but the option of coal mining is going to make school a lot less attractive to children in destitute families. Some jobs for children can be done after school, which is the point I was making with a paper route, and only moderately increase the risk of injury.
Once again, I disagree that is inherently the case. It is only because the paper-route kids are relatively well off that they still attend schools and do not take such high risks of injury.

I do, in fact, hate white people
Why is that? Do you hate all white people, or just think that there is a high tendency among them to be deserving of hate?

remember that when the markets were entirely free
I don’t think that has ever been the case. States have existed about as long as the markets they exist as parasites on.

women were, in many societies, treated worse than animals
I’d say being raised to be slaughtered and eaten sounds worse than whatever condition were in.

you wouldn’t have lasted a day
They were certainly more lethal than today (warfare was near constant, even if they weren’t as deadly individually) but that seems an exaggeration.

Corporations and governments both have a horrid track record of treating people ethically.
Hmm, governments have committed genocide (R. J. Rummel calls it democide). What’s the worst corporations have done?

Corporations and governments both have a horrid track record of treating people ethically.

So who should make the childs decision for it? Its parents, or the government?

Baby-selling in Guatemala. Even worse, baby factories for the American market. But I ask this: If you’re a middle class white suburban American family and adopt a Guatemalan baby, can that kid put Hispanic on his college application? And, i…

I mentioned those instances as seperate from crime in general. White collar included. Crime makes it difficult for the honest man to keep what he has. (You have a skill for rephrasing an argument in a way that you know it wasn’t intended, so as to appear witty. It’s dishonest, and it doesn’t help you appear superior.)

Arguing your false conclusion:

Not directly. However, addiction DOES make a person mentally incompetent, morally nuetral at best, and more likely to make choices, like stealing, to support a habit. Addiction, of course, is made possible by drug running.

A paper route is great. Coal mining is bad.

Is that inherently the case? Let’s say to make the equivalent amount of money the paper-delivering child would have to bike (or walk) for hundreds of miles and wasn’t allowed any rest stops and didn’t have anything to drink or eat, while the coal-mining child could be done in fifteen minutes. Paper routes are (or were, who reads the paper nowadays?) taken by middle class kids whose parents have plenty of money but want their kid to learn the value of work. Coal mining jobs are taken by kids who are not nearly as fortunate. Prohibiting them from mining coal is not going to turn them into the former kind of kid.

No, but the option of coal mining is going to make school a lot less attractive to children in destitute families. Some jobs for children can be done after school, which is the point I was making with a paper route, and only moderately increase the risk of injury. Some jobs require 14 hour days and include a distinct mortality rate. An adult who works in a coal mine to support his family has made an adult decision. A child isn’t in a position to make that choice, especially in desperation.

Regulation is rarely the answer, (the drug war has done more to create terrorism, crime and exploitation than addiction would alone,) so before you say the drug running isn’t the problem, (it’s only a big part of the existence of the problem, I know,) or accuse me of racism (I do, in fact, hate white people,) remember that when the markets were entirely free, people were sold as property, children were sexual servants, women were, in many societies, treated worse than animals, and you wouldn’t have lasted a day. Any superiority other than purely physical helps little in a hunter-gatherer tribe. (I <3 run on sentences.)

Corporations and governments both have a horrid track record of treating people ethically.