Before visiting Guatemala a few weeks ago, I read this travel advisory: In 2007 particularly virulent rumors of child stealing and of murder for organ harvesting have been reported in several different areas of Guatemala frequented by American tourists. This year numerous Guatemalan citizens have been lynched for suspicion of child stealing.
"All that is required for evil men to triumph is for good men to remain silent."
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.
I would agree with DaCracka's first assessment - it does not make us any wiser if you split an argument into ten different sentences and then write something funny under each of them. Here's one:
"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.
I think that it helps to analyze the argument better.
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.
I think he would not abolish the Penal Code. Or antitrust.I don't know about the former, but I though I remembered him coming out against the latter.
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 peopleWhy 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 freeI 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 animalsI'd say being raised to be slaughtered and eaten sounds worse than whatever condition were in.
you wouldn't have lasted a dayThey 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?
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...
Drug running, prostitution and baby-selling does all that to the poor honest workingman?
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.
I don't object strongly to women being forced to work in some non-abusive factory if they can be more employable afterwards; I do object to them being forced into a dead-end existence for the benefit of others
Argh! Can't believe I wrote that. By "forced" I mean "coerced by their social environment" and by "object strongly" I mean "object as strongly".
By "I never had sex with that woman" I of course mean...
"I do not accept your use of the concept of "the weak" as a means to generalize from the mentally incompetent to Guatemalan women. Mental incompetence really is quite different from having a low rank in a family hierarchy. I think it is sloppy of you to conflate these two very different things"
I don't say it is the same thing, I say it r e s u l t s in the same thing, namely them being exploited and cut off from their freedom to choose.
Again, sorry about my earlier name dropping, it was arrogant and I was way out of line. Still, an i n t e r v i e w with Coase which you find lying around in cyberspace is not very representative as a good reference, and prone to misinterpretation. I think this is exactly what you did. Agriculture regimes suck, I agree, and so does much other regulation "from a to z". On the other hand, Penal Code is between a and z too. From all I have read on Coase and his work, I think he would not abolish the Penal Code. Or antitrust. But he sure may dislike agricultural policies, and say in an interview that regulation from a to z is bad. If we make no effort to understand what and whom we quote, we can all start piling up evidence from the internet to back up what we say and the one who gets the biggest pile, wins.
Bottom line is, I asked you for three good references, and you gave me one piece of writing which lies around in the internet and twist it's meaning to fit your argument. Frankly, l don't find this very intellectually satisfying.
TGGP,
Ok, I was wrong, you and Constant wouldn't want that regulation.
Thank's for linking me to those posts. 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.
In fact, "so does everybody else" is not such a crappy excuse in this respect.
Welfare is usually perceived as the sum of people's preferences, a close to immeasurable thing (sometimes even to our very selves). Luckily these preferences can be transmitted into policy through voting. Ok, so voting is biased too. But that doesn't exclude that the result might still be welfare enhancing. 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.
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.
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. In fact, I know a guy like this. He's a very smart fellow who lives in the woods on fish, berries and roots and I believe he's happy. 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. He's letting the real world consequences of his own thinking rain all over himself, and opts to stick with it. His thinking is consistent with his preferences. Is yours?
Creating other types of economic opportunities for women does.
This might be something interesting to dig into. I've got a strong impression that developing countries (and people in those countries) profit much more from industries that create a skill base, rather than those that just produce money (mainly things like oil, diamonds, and other natural ressources). Oil, especially, seems a development curse (though I may be generalising from easily recalled examples).
Selling babies is definetly in the last category: it requires no skills, and leaves only money behind. Ignoring the positive externalities in the western world (the adoptive parents are not the issue here), this feels like a massive payout to female poor guatemalans women based on their fertility. Imagine that some aid agency was doing this payout. Direct cash donations to a poor community are not a particularly effective form of aid, and I don't know if this would be a net plus or a net minus (I've seen both cases happen, even in the same community (at different moments, obviously)).
So to the other objections to selling babies, I'd add: "Would this destroy some (potential?) indigenous industry dependent on Guatemalan women, which builds a skill base and would result in higher happiness, or higher wealth, further down the road?"
A very Whigish idea, but one that underlines most of my thinking in this domain (and clarifies my previous point - I don't object strongly to women being forced to work in some non-abusive factory if they can be more employable afterwards; I do object to them being forced into a dead-end existence for the benefit of others).
The only question is, is it true?
But clearly our default is not to limit a person's optionsIs it not? We want them to obey the law, for a start. But there are some stronger objections: I can't think of any country that has not industrialised on the back of a highly paternalistic government (combined with greater freedom later on, and the rudiments of a market economy of course - paternalism is never enough). I'm not knowledgeable in the area, but all the examples that leap immediately to mind are of that type (even the USA was very much into trade barriers and other methods of protecting/directing its nascent industry).
Does anyone know of research in that area? And something that could uncover causation? If the Whigish ideas are true (at least for countries starting to develop) then the default may indeed be to limit a person's options in some ways.
Stereotypically and traditionally in most cultures, the only cost in sexual reproduction for males is raising the child, while the benefit is spreading his genes. In our society, males who reproduce are generally required to pay child support if they shirk their child-rearing responsibilities. In the minds of most males across cultures, the process of creating a baby skips from conception to raising the child. The author's original claim is based on this framework: if not raising your own child would normally incur financial cost, then receiving money for not raising your child is doubly beneficial. The resources required in child-rearing is the only possible negative effect under consideration for sexual reproduction, so producing babies to sell them must only be beneficial!
The original post failed to consider the negative effects of pregnancy and childbirth for the woman, of course. In the author's cost-benefit analysis, there is zero cost. Because the cost of pregnancy for the woman is not even in the equation, the claim that it is generally a good thing and that it "benefits" the woman is at best controversial.
However, the author's cost-benefit analysis with zero cost is basically right on for the Guatemalan men. The Guatemalan men who can have babies without raising them OR paying child support are benefitting greatly, and receiving payment on top of that is an added bonus.
On banning versus reducing economic barriers: Neither
Nowhere in my posts have I advocated banning the option to produce babies to sell. However, I am appalled that the author advocated lowering barriers for such an exchange, and claiming humanitarian reasons, to boot. Lowering the barriers to such an exchange would drive down the prices of babies, and benefits the affluent people in developed countries who want to adopt rather than the poor people in developing countries who have much less choice.
Being against reducing economic barriers for such a practise does not necessitate wanting to ban the practise. Of course, there are some cases in which selling your child is the lesser of two evils, and it's up to the individual woman to decide what is best given her situation.
However, I do not consider this type of economy to be a "positive" thing for women. In general, the only positive thing about it is making money, and women should be given other opportunities to make money. Reducing economic barriers for this practise does not give poor women more choices. Creating other types of economic opportunities for women does.
So suddenly you acknowledge that the weak might be in need of protection? You didn't do it earlier but fine. Guatemalan women are weak too (not mentally but due to them easily being cut out of effectively influencing their choices in the baby market), but I won't go through this rabble again.
I do not accept your use of the concept of "the weak" as a means to generalize from the mentally incompetent to Guatemalan women. Mental incompetence really is quite different from having a low rank in a family hierarchy. I think it is sloppy of you to conflate these two very different things.
The names and the latin quote are very basic - not "random" - and should be known to any first year student. It's more like mentioning the name of George Bush in connection with world politis.
"Random" in context means, roughly, for no good reason. And you've acknowledged that you brought up the names for no good reason.
Is that so?you yourself are protected by regulation that you would never want to give upYes, it is so. I do want to give up that regulation. So you were wrong because you presumed too much.
Might be I do, but then so does everybody elseA poor excuse.
who is pro protective regulation such as consumer protection, antitrust regulation, child labor regulation, to mention a few.Most of them admit that some people would like to be exempt from these regulations, but feel that they are necessary to protect those who are not competent to protect themselves. These sorts of issues were discussed here and here at this blog.
The incidences of addiction are far more prevelant in low-income areas, and crime makes it difficult for the honest man to keep what he worked for.Drug running, prostitution and baby-selling does all that to the poor honest workingman?
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.
I'm glad Mikael made that confession about the name-dropping. I was thinking of saying something but I figured it would just be taken as an insult and not have been conducive to civil discourse.
I've reposted my comment and responded to the responses to it at this post. Those who want to continue the discussion should go there.
Enough. No more generic market vs. govt debate here. I've unpublished a 900 word comment by TGGP.
"All that is required for evil men to triumph is for good men to remain silent."
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.
I would agree with DaCracka's first assessment - it does not make us any wiser if you split an argument into ten different sentences and then write something funny under each of them. Here's one:
"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.
I think that it helps to analyze the argument better.
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.
Some of these comments are drifting too far from the post topic and are getting too long.
I think he would not abolish the Penal Code. Or antitrust.I don't know about the former, but I though I remembered him coming out against the latter.
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 peopleWhy 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 freeI 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 animalsI'd say being raised to be slaughtered and eaten sounds worse than whatever condition were in.
you wouldn't have lasted a dayThey 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?
A child isn't in a position to make that choice, especially in desperation.
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?
Saturday Morning Links
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...
Drug running, prostitution and baby-selling does all that to the poor honest workingman?
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.
I don't object strongly to women being forced to work in some non-abusive factory if they can be more employable afterwards; I do object to them being forced into a dead-end existence for the benefit of others
Argh! Can't believe I wrote that. By "forced" I mean "coerced by their social environment" and by "object strongly" I mean "object as strongly".
By "I never had sex with that woman" I of course mean...
Constant,
"I do not accept your use of the concept of "the weak" as a means to generalize from the mentally incompetent to Guatemalan women. Mental incompetence really is quite different from having a low rank in a family hierarchy. I think it is sloppy of you to conflate these two very different things"
I don't say it is the same thing, I say it r e s u l t s in the same thing, namely them being exploited and cut off from their freedom to choose.
Again, sorry about my earlier name dropping, it was arrogant and I was way out of line. Still, an i n t e r v i e w with Coase which you find lying around in cyberspace is not very representative as a good reference, and prone to misinterpretation. I think this is exactly what you did. Agriculture regimes suck, I agree, and so does much other regulation "from a to z". On the other hand, Penal Code is between a and z too. From all I have read on Coase and his work, I think he would not abolish the Penal Code. Or antitrust. But he sure may dislike agricultural policies, and say in an interview that regulation from a to z is bad. If we make no effort to understand what and whom we quote, we can all start piling up evidence from the internet to back up what we say and the one who gets the biggest pile, wins.
Bottom line is, I asked you for three good references, and you gave me one piece of writing which lies around in the internet and twist it's meaning to fit your argument. Frankly, l don't find this very intellectually satisfying.
TGGP,
Ok, I was wrong, you and Constant wouldn't want that regulation.
Thank's for linking me to those posts. 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.
In fact, "so does everybody else" is not such a crappy excuse in this respect.
Welfare is usually perceived as the sum of people's preferences, a close to immeasurable thing (sometimes even to our very selves). Luckily these preferences can be transmitted into policy through voting. Ok, so voting is biased too. But that doesn't exclude that the result might still be welfare enhancing. 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.
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.
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. In fact, I know a guy like this. He's a very smart fellow who lives in the woods on fish, berries and roots and I believe he's happy. 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. He's letting the real world consequences of his own thinking rain all over himself, and opts to stick with it. His thinking is consistent with his preferences. Is yours?
Creating other types of economic opportunities for women does.
This might be something interesting to dig into. I've got a strong impression that developing countries (and people in those countries) profit much more from industries that create a skill base, rather than those that just produce money (mainly things like oil, diamonds, and other natural ressources). Oil, especially, seems a development curse (though I may be generalising from easily recalled examples).
Selling babies is definetly in the last category: it requires no skills, and leaves only money behind. Ignoring the positive externalities in the western world (the adoptive parents are not the issue here), this feels like a massive payout to female poor guatemalans women based on their fertility. Imagine that some aid agency was doing this payout. Direct cash donations to a poor community are not a particularly effective form of aid, and I don't know if this would be a net plus or a net minus (I've seen both cases happen, even in the same community (at different moments, obviously)).
So to the other objections to selling babies, I'd add: "Would this destroy some (potential?) indigenous industry dependent on Guatemalan women, which builds a skill base and would result in higher happiness, or higher wealth, further down the road?"
A very Whigish idea, but one that underlines most of my thinking in this domain (and clarifies my previous point - I don't object strongly to women being forced to work in some non-abusive factory if they can be more employable afterwards; I do object to them being forced into a dead-end existence for the benefit of others).
The only question is, is it true?
But clearly our default is not to limit a person's optionsIs it not? We want them to obey the law, for a start. But there are some stronger objections: I can't think of any country that has not industrialised on the back of a highly paternalistic government (combined with greater freedom later on, and the rudiments of a market economy of course - paternalism is never enough). I'm not knowledgeable in the area, but all the examples that leap immediately to mind are of that type (even the USA was very much into trade barriers and other methods of protecting/directing its nascent industry).
Does anyone know of research in that area? And something that could uncover causation? If the Whigish ideas are true (at least for countries starting to develop) then the default may indeed be to limit a person's options in some ways.
All right, let me just clarify my position.
On male bias in perception of benefit
Stereotypically and traditionally in most cultures, the only cost in sexual reproduction for males is raising the child, while the benefit is spreading his genes. In our society, males who reproduce are generally required to pay child support if they shirk their child-rearing responsibilities. In the minds of most males across cultures, the process of creating a baby skips from conception to raising the child. The author's original claim is based on this framework: if not raising your own child would normally incur financial cost, then receiving money for not raising your child is doubly beneficial. The resources required in child-rearing is the only possible negative effect under consideration for sexual reproduction, so producing babies to sell them must only be beneficial!
The original post failed to consider the negative effects of pregnancy and childbirth for the woman, of course. In the author's cost-benefit analysis, there is zero cost. Because the cost of pregnancy for the woman is not even in the equation, the claim that it is generally a good thing and that it "benefits" the woman is at best controversial.
However, the author's cost-benefit analysis with zero cost is basically right on for the Guatemalan men. The Guatemalan men who can have babies without raising them OR paying child support are benefitting greatly, and receiving payment on top of that is an added bonus.
On banning versus reducing economic barriers: Neither
Nowhere in my posts have I advocated banning the option to produce babies to sell. However, I am appalled that the author advocated lowering barriers for such an exchange, and claiming humanitarian reasons, to boot. Lowering the barriers to such an exchange would drive down the prices of babies, and benefits the affluent people in developed countries who want to adopt rather than the poor people in developing countries who have much less choice.
Being against reducing economic barriers for such a practise does not necessitate wanting to ban the practise. Of course, there are some cases in which selling your child is the lesser of two evils, and it's up to the individual woman to decide what is best given her situation.
However, I do not consider this type of economy to be a "positive" thing for women. In general, the only positive thing about it is making money, and women should be given other opportunities to make money. Reducing economic barriers for this practise does not give poor women more choices. Creating other types of economic opportunities for women does.
So suddenly you acknowledge that the weak might be in need of protection? You didn't do it earlier but fine. Guatemalan women are weak too (not mentally but due to them easily being cut out of effectively influencing their choices in the baby market), but I won't go through this rabble again.
I do not accept your use of the concept of "the weak" as a means to generalize from the mentally incompetent to Guatemalan women. Mental incompetence really is quite different from having a low rank in a family hierarchy. I think it is sloppy of you to conflate these two very different things.
The names and the latin quote are very basic - not "random" - and should be known to any first year student. It's more like mentioning the name of George Bush in connection with world politis.
"Random" in context means, roughly, for no good reason. And you've acknowledged that you brought up the names for no good reason.
Is that so?you yourself are protected by regulation that you would never want to give upYes, it is so. I do want to give up that regulation. So you were wrong because you presumed too much.
Might be I do, but then so does everybody elseA poor excuse.
who is pro protective regulation such as consumer protection, antitrust regulation, child labor regulation, to mention a few.Most of them admit that some people would like to be exempt from these regulations, but feel that they are necessary to protect those who are not competent to protect themselves. These sorts of issues were discussed here and here at this blog.
The incidences of addiction are far more prevelant in low-income areas, and crime makes it difficult for the honest man to keep what he worked for.Drug running, prostitution and baby-selling does all that to the poor honest workingman?
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.
I'm glad Mikael made that confession about the name-dropping. I was thinking of saying something but I figured it would just be taken as an insult and not have been conducive to civil discourse.